@true402.dev/mcp-server

token_safety_ethereum

Instructions

Rug/honeypot safety check for an ERC-20 token on Ethereum (from on-chain reads — no API key): ERC-20 conformance, ownership renounce, mint-capability, WETH/USDC liquidity depth across uniswap-v3 + uniswap-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_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 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, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that reads are on-chain with no API key, that the honeypot test is a gas-free eth_call simulation, that the result is a 0–100 score plus risk flags, and it fully explains the payment/auth profile (free-trial 402 boundary, x402 USDC on Base, need for a funded MCP wallet, fixed $0.005 price).

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 purpose and checks, then the return shape and payment terms. The payment explanation is somewhat dense and slightly redundant (free-trial/402 followed by a paid x402 note and price), but every part is operative information for an agent deciding whether it can call the tool.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is checked, what is returned, that it is read-only/simulation-based, and crucially the payment and funding requirements that determine whether a call will succeed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a POST `{ token }` hint and re-states the Ethereum-only scope; it does not add format or validation detail beyond what the schema already documents for `token` and `chain`.

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: a rug/honeypot safety check for an ERC-20 token on Ethereum. It enumerates the concrete checks (ERC-20 conformance, ownership renounce, mint capability, liquidity depth, buy/sell simulation) and thereby distinguishes itself from siblings like token_safety_bsc, token_safety_solana, token_report_ethereum, and honeypot.

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?

Gives clear context on when the tool works for free (caller's IP with free-trial calls left) versus when it returns 402, plus the payment mechanics. It does not explicitly route the agent away from near siblings such as token_report_ethereum in favor of this one, 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.