@true402.dev/mcp-server

token_report_ethereum

Instructions

The flagship composite for an Ethereum 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), 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. Recent liquidity-removal and whale-swap activity is tracked on Base only, so recentPulls and recentWhaleSwaps are always empty on this chain. (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_ethereum"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the avoid|caution|ok verdict, that underlying reports are returned, free-trial behavior, 402 fallback, x402 paid settlement requirements, price, and the Base-only limitation that makes recentPulls and recentWhaleSwaps empty on Ethereum.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded and the operational caveats are packed efficiently into one paragraph. It is somewhat dense and repeats the paid/free-trial framing across separate clauses, but most sentences carry useful selection or invocation 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?

For a complex paid composite with no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it correctly: what it checks, what verdict it returns, what it replaces, payment behavior, and chain-specific caveats. The remaining response-shape details are not required for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the required token address and optional chain field. The description reinforces the token input and Ethereum-only scope but adds no syntax or format semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

The description states a specific resource and job: a composite Ethereum ERC-20 token-safety report that runs conformance, ownership, mint-capability, liquidity and honeypot checks. It distinguishes this from sibling-style separate purchases by framing it as 'one call instead of five' and naming the underlying checks it replaces.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this for a full token-safety check and it is cheaper than buying token-safety, liquidity-pulls and whale-swaps separately. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, such as when only a single narrow check is needed, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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