Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@true402.dev/mcp-server

@true402.dev/mcp-server

by true402
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

deployer_check

Resolves the deployer of a Base token and profiles that wallet's reputation: age (tx-count), balance, and whether it is a FRESH throwaway spun up for the launch (a common rug setup) — the discriminating caution.

Instructions

Resolves the deployer of a Base token and profiles that wallet's reputation: age (tx-count), balance, and whether it is a FRESH throwaway spun up for the launch (a common rug setup) — the discriminating caution. Reputation context a structural/honeypot check can't see. The creator is resolved from the chain itself (its creation receipt), so no explorer is needed. On Base the contracts-shipped count and deep mode are unavailable for now: both need an explorer's list of the contracts a wallet created, which Base lacks today, so contractsCreated comes back null and the answer's limits[] says so. POST { token }. Unpaid returns 402 — no free trial on this stall, it is paid from the first call. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.008 USD (fixed).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "deployer_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deepNoOpt-in: also classify the deployer's recent prior tokens as live/dead (no liquidity = rug outcome). Slower; the real serial-rugger signal.
chainNoChain to check; only 'base' is supported (default)
tokenYesToken contract address (0x…) on Base

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (on-chain creation receipt, no explorer), the Base limitation that `contractsCreated` returns null and `limits[]` reports it, the 402 on unpaid calls, and that the service is paid from the first call. Missing are failure modes (invalid or non-token address), latency, and any notion of how "FRESH" is thresholded.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core verb/resource, then cost and Base caveats — a sensible ordering. It is dense with em-dash asides and one flourish ("no free trial on this stall"), but nearly every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema, unannotated paid tool, it covers source of truth, the known data gap, the payment gate, and exact price — enough to call it correctly on the first attempt. What remains unstated (response shape beyond `limits[]`, fresh-wallet threshold, latency) is secondary but not trivial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond it — the token is sent as POST `{ token }`, and it warns that `deep` (offered in the schema) is unavailable on Base today, a caveat the schema itself omits. That caveat is valuable but also leaves the agent unsure whether to pass `deep` at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — resolves the deployer of a Base token and profiles that wallet's reputation (age, balance, fresh-wallet flag) — plus a scope qualifier that separates it from chain-structure checks. The Base-only framing and the `deployer_check_ethereum` sibling make the boundary obvious without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Reputation context a structural/honeypot check can't see" positions it as complementary to honeypot/token_safety and implies when to reach for it. It also flags `deep` as opt-in and slower, which is a real usage decision. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools