@true402.dev/mcp-server

token_safety_solana

Instructions

Rug/trap safety check for a Solana SPL or Token-2022 token: mint authority (supply inflation), freeze authority (the Solana honeypot — the issuer can freeze your token account so you cannot sell), Token-2022 extensions (permanentDelegate = tokens can be moved out of your wallet, transferHook = issuer code can reject your transfer, transferFee) and pool liquidity depth. Returns a 0–100 score + risk flags. POST { token } with a base58 mint. NOT a buy/sell simulation: Solana has no EVM bytecode, so the eth_call round-trip the Base/Ethereum/BSC stalls run does not exist here. 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_solana"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain to check; only 'solana' is supported on this endpoint (default)
`token`	Yes	SPL mint address (base58) on Solana

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return shape (0–100 score + risk flags), the exact semantics of each flag (freeze authority = honeypot, permanentDelegate = tokens movable out of wallet, transferHook = issuer can reject transfers), and the full billing behavior — free while the IP has trial calls, 402 otherwise, x402 USDC-on-Base settlement requiring 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?

Purpose and the list of checks are front-loaded, which is the right structure. The trailing payment paragraph is dense (parenthetical 402/trial mechanics) and slightly bloats an otherwise tight definition, but every sentence still carries operational information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the output shape, the meaning of each risk flag, the input format, and the payment/failure mode (402). Only latency, pagination-equivalent limits, and the exact flag list returned are unspecified, which is acceptable for this 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only restates the base58 mint format already present in the schema. It adds no new meaning for the optional 'chain' parameter (e.g. that it is fixed/defaulted on this endpoint), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource — a rug/trap safety check on a Solana SPL or Token-2022 mint — and enumerates exactly what is inspected (mint authority, freeze authority, Token-2022 extensions, pool liquidity). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'honeypot'/'tx_preflight' style tools by declaring it is NOT a buy/sell simulation and that no eth_call round-trip exists on Solana.

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 usage context: call it when evaluating a Solana mint for rug/honeypot risk, and explicitly excludes the buy/sell-simulation use case, implicitly routing that need and the EVM equivalents (Base/Ethereum/BSC stalls) elsewhere. It does not name the specific Solana-adjacent siblings (token_dossier, token_report) it should be paired with, so the routing is strong but not exhaustive.

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