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

@true402.dev/mcp-server

by true402
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

deployer_check_ethereum

Resolves the deployer of an Ethereum 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 an Ethereum 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. POST { token }. Unpaid returns 402 — no free trial on this stall, it is paid from the first call. Requires an explorer key on the server; returns 503 if not configured (and is not charged). (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_ethereum"
  }
}

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 'ethereum' is supported on this endpoint (default)
tokenYesToken contract address (0x…) on Ethereum

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses the paid x402/USDC-on-Base model, the fixed $0.008 price, that unpaid calls return 402 with no free trial, and that a missing server-side explorer key yields a 503 that is not charged. It also notes the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle, which is exactly the operational precondition an agent must know before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry real information (reputation signals, payment model, failure modes). The payment point is restated three times (402 line, 'PAID x402' parenthetical, price line), and the 'no free trial on this stall' flourish costs space without adding an actionable fact.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is nearly self-sufficient: it covers the paid-call mechanics, error behaviors, prerequisites, and the shape of the reputation output. The one remaining gap is what happens when a deployer cannot be resolved (EOA-deployed contract, factory, or unknown address), which an agent would want before relying on 'fresh throwaway' as a negative signal.

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 the schema already documents `token`, `chain`, and the `deep` opt-in, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a little beyond the schema by stating the request shape (POST `{ token }`) and treating the call as a single-token lookup, but it does not reinforce the chain restriction or the `deep` flag's cost/benefit tradeoff, so it stays close to baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('resolves the deployer of an Ethereum token and profiles that wallet's reputation') and enumerates the concrete signals returned: age/tx-count, balance, and a fresh-throwaway flag. It also differentiates itself from sibling surface checks by stating it supplies 'reputation context a structural/honeypot check can't see', so an agent can distinguish it from honeypot/token_safety without opening the 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?

Clearly frames when this tool earns a call: as the 'discriminating caution' layered on top of structural or honeypot analysis, with a warning about the common rug setup. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative sibling (e.g., deployer_check multi-chain, address_safety_ethereum) for the case where a deployer reputation lookup is unnecessary.

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