Retrieve recently flagged Solana tokens rated dangerous or risky, including safety reasons to identify unsafe investments.
List of recently flagged Solana tokens (DANGEROUS or RISKY safety level) with reasons.
Price: $0.01 (paid in USDC on Solana via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool is paid ($0.01 in USDC via x402), which is important behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, or what happens if payment fails. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it partially meets it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the pricing note. It is two sentences with no wasted words, though the pricing note could arguably be separated into a cost field if one existed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned and the cost. However, it lacks details on the output structure (e.g., fields like token address, risk level, reason) and whether the list is sorted or paginated. The pricing disclosure is a strong addition, but the missing output details leave a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed, and the schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of recently flagged Solana tokens with safety levels and reasons, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_safety or token_safety_history. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but the core purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for viewing recently flagged tokens, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like token_safety or token_safety_history. The pricing note is useful context but not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.