@true402.dev/mcp-server

token_safety

Instructions

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": "token_safety"
  }
}

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.

First observedv0.7.1Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

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 so well: it discloses that reads are on-chain with no API key, that the honeypot check is a gas-free eth_call round-trip, that the response is a 0–100 score plus risk flags, and it details the payment model and the 402 fallback when the free daily allowance is exhausted. Minor gaps remain (no stated latency/caching or handling of invalid addresses), which keeps it from 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?

Purpose and the list of checks are front-loaded, and the dense single paragraph has little filler. The payment information is somewhat repetitive ('Unpaid: free while... otherwise returns 402' followed by the PAID x402 parenthetical and a separate price line), costing a bit of tightness.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the necessary ground: inputs, what is checked, what is returned (score + risk flags), and the billing/authentication behavior. What is missing is an indication of what individual risk flags mean or how the score is composed, but that is a modest gap.

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 both parameters (token, chain) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the body shape ('POST `{ token }`') and confirms the Base-chain focus; it adds no syntax or validation detail for the address beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Rug/honeypot safety check for an ERC-20 token on Base') and enumerates the concrete checks performed: ERC-20 conformance, ownership renounce, mint capability, liquidity across Uniswap V3 + Aerodrome, and a honeypot simulation. The chain qualifier ('on Base') readily distinguishes it from the sibling variants token_safety_ethereum, token_safety_bsc and token_safety_solana.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The scope ('ERC-20 token on Base') implies when the tool applies, and the payment/free-trial conditions are spelled out clearly. However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from overlapping siblings such as honeypot, token_dossier or address_safety, so the when-to-use decision is left to inference from the chain suffix.

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