@true402.dev/mcp-server

token_safety_bsc

Instructions

Rug/honeypot safety check for an ERC-20 token on BNB Smart Chain (BSC) (from on-chain reads — no API key): ERC-20 conformance, ownership renounce, mint-capability, WBNB/USDC liquidity depth across pancakeswap-v3 + pancakeswap-v2, 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_bsc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain to check; only 'bsc' is supported on this endpoint (default)
`token`	Yes	ERC-20 contract address on BNB Smart Chain (BSC)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 thoroughly: it explains that checks are on-chain with no API key, states it returns a 0–100 score plus risk flags, and details the payment model (free daily trial, then HTTP 402, x402 USDC-on-Base settlement, $0.005 price). This is exactly the kind of invocation-critical context an agent needs 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?

The purpose and chain are front-loaded, and the payment details, though dense, are necessary for invocation. The single-paragraph structure with heavy parentheticals makes it slightly harder to scan than ideal, but every sentence contributes useful 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the return value (0–100 score + risk flags). Combined with full parameter documentation in the schema and complete payment/authentication details, an agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call the tool.

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 and chain) are already well documented in the schema. The description only repeats 'POST {token}' and the chain restriction, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rug/honeypot safety check for an ERC-20 token on BNB Smart Chain (BSC)'. It enumerates the exact checks performed (ERC-20 conformance, ownership renounce, mint capability, liquidity depth, honeypot simulation), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like token_safety_ethereum or honeypot.

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 chain restriction ('BSC') is implied by the name and schema, but the description never explicitly routes the agent to alternatives such as token_safety_ethereum or token_safety for other chains, nor does it say when not to use this tool. Usage is strongly implied by the chain-specific name and scope, but no explicit comparisons are offered.

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