Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Pre-trade token risk scoring API for Base tokens, paid via x402.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Server Listing
AgentRisk

Available Tools

1 tool
check_token_riskAInspect

Checks whether a token on Base is safe enough for an autonomous agent to trade. Returns riskScore, riskLevel, and shouldExecute with structured reasons. Requires x402 payment.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
token_addressYesBase contract address (0x...)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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 well by disclosing the read-oriented check behavior, the specific return fields (riskScore, riskLevel, shouldExecute), and the x402 payment requirement. It could add more detail about side effects or edge cases, but for a checking tool it is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences contain all essential information: purpose, return values, and payment requirement. Nothing is redundant or extraneous.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the key operational details: what to pass, what will come back, and the payment requirement. It could explain the meaning of riskLevel thresholds or execution rules, but this is not required to invoke the tool correctly.

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% because 'token_address' is documented as a Base contract address. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Checks whether') and a clear resource ('a token on Base'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. Even without siblings to distinguish against, the safety-check intent is precise and unambiguous.

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?

The description establishes the clear context: an autonomous agent deciding whether a Base token is safe to trade. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling tools exist, the context is sufficient to guide when this tool is relevant.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedcheck_token_risk

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Agent-native scored launch intelligence for Base blockchain, providing opportunity/risk scores and AVOID/WATCH/HOT decisions per fresh launch via x402 pay-per-call API. Enables trading/research agents to act directly on structured launch data.
    -
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Provides counterparty risk checks for any EVM address, returning malicious-history flags, tiered risk scoring, and plain-language summaries via x402 payment.
    -
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Checks token contract safety for honeypot, tax, proxy, blacklist, ownership risks, and returns a risk score, enabling rug-pull protection for agents via pay-per-call x402 micropayments.
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with other tools. The tool's purpose is clearly stated.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (check_token_risk), which is consistent and descriptive.

Tool Count3/5

One tool is at the lower boundary of acceptable. For a narrowly focused token risk checker, it could be sufficient, but the generic server name suggests a broader scope.

Completeness2/5

The server name 'agentrisk' implies a broader risk assessment domain, but only token risk on Base is covered. Missing other risk types or additional token analysis features.

Resources