@true402.dev/mcp-server

honeypot

Instructions

Same check and price as the token-safety tool, under the name buyers search for. Rug/honeypot safety check for an ERC-20 token on Base (from on-chain reads — no API key): ERC-20 conformance, ownership renounce, mint-capability, WETH/USDC liquidity depth across Uniswap V3 + Aerodrome, and a buy/sell honeypot simulation (a gas-free eth_call that round-trips a tiny WETH→token→WETH trade to detect tokens you can buy but not sell). Returns a 0–100 score + risk flags. POST { token }. Unpaid: free while the caller's IP has free-trial calls left that day (a small daily allowance shared across the trial stalls, no wallet); otherwise returns 402. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.005 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": "honeypot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	'base' (default)
`token`	Yes	ERC-20 contract address on Base

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

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 richly: on-chain reads with no API key, ownership/mint/liquidity checks, and a gas-free eth_call honeypot simulation that round-trips a trade to detect buy-but-not-sell tokens. It also discloses the 0–100 score + risk flags output and the full payment/402 mechanics.

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?

Reasonably front-loaded with what the tool is and how it differs from token_safety before detailing checks and payment terms. It is dense and long, but the payment/402 details earn their place for an x402 paid service.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return (0–100 score + risk flags) and the enumerated checks. Combined with the payment/auth mechanics, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the POST { token } call shape and Base chain context but doesn't meaningfully elaborate on the `chain` parameter or token format beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource (rug/honeypot safety check for an ERC-20 token on Base) and enumerates the concrete checks performed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling token_safety by noting it is the same check 'under the name buyers search for', so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explains the payment context: free while the caller's IP has trial calls left, otherwise 402, with a fixed $0.005 price and the requirement for a funded wallet to settle. It signals this tool mirrors token_safety, though it doesn't state a positive reason to pick honeypot over that sibling beyond the naming angle.

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