@true402.dev/mcp-server

token_report

Instructions

The flagship composite for a Base ERC-20 — one call instead of five. Runs the full token-safety check (ERC-20 conformance, ownership, mint-capability, WETH/USDC liquidity depth, buy/sell honeypot simulation), enriches it with the live recent liquidity-removal (rug) + whale-swap activity on the token, and returns a single avoid|caution|ok verdict with reasons plus the underlying reports. POST { token }. Cheaper than buying token-safety + liquidity-pulls + whale-swaps separately. 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: $0.008 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": "token_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain to check; only 'base' is supported (default)
`token`	Yes	ERC-20 contract address (0x…) on Base

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.1Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 much of it: it discloses the composite scope, the return shape (avoid|caution|ok verdict plus underlying reports), the POST invocation, and a detailed payment model (x402 USDC on Base, $0.008 fixed, free-trial IP allowance, otherwise HTTP 402). It omits latency, caching, and failure behavior when the upstream simulations error, which keeps it below a 5.

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 value proposition and the enumerated checks before pricing details, so an agent gets the essentials in the first sentence. Slightly verbose, with some marketing framing ('flagship') and a parenthetical about the MCP server wallet that could be shortened, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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, and the description compensates by describing what is returned: a single verdict with reasons plus the underlying component reports. Combined with the payment/trial semantics and the explicit supported chain, 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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'POST `{ token }`' and 'Base ERC-20' phrasing only restates what the schema already says about token and chain, adding no new syntax or format guidance.

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 ('composite token-safety check for a Base ERC-20') and enumerates exactly what is bundled (ERC-20 conformance, ownership, mint-capability, liquidity depth, honeypot simulation, rug/whale activity). An agent can distinguish it from token_safety, liquidity_pulls, and whale_swaps without opening any 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?

Explicitly frames the tool as 'one call instead of five' and 'cheaper than buying token-safety + liquidity-pulls + whale-swaps separately', which routes the agent to the right sibling set. It also constrains scope to Base. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. when a single narrow check suffices), so it is clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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