Solana memecoin rug + creator-reputation checks for agents. PASS/CAUTION/FAIL + 0-100 score.
Solana memecoin'i risk-filtrelerinden geçir: rug/authority/içerik güvenlik + creator-retention(kazanan-sinyali) + holder-dağılım + deployer-itibar + likidite + piyasa-rejimi. Döner: PASS/CAUTION/FAIL + 0-100 skor + risk-seviyesi + gerekçeler. NOT: alpha-vaat-etmez, risk-eleme/kazanan-konsantrasyonu (yüksek-varyans evren).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana token mint-adresi | |
| fresh | No | erken-lansman evreni (varsayılan true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the return format (PASS/CAUTION/FAIL, 0-100 score, risk level, reasons) and explicitly states a limitation (no alpha promise, risk elimination/winner concentration focus). This is strong for a read-only check tool, though it doesn't mention data sources or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and information-dense, front-loading the main action and listing filters and outputs efficiently. The 'NOT' clause adds important boundary context without excessive length, though the Turkish phrasing is somewhat dense and jargon-heavy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains root purpose, the main filters, the output shape, and the tool's limitations, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Lacking an output schema, the description compensates by describing the return values. It could further clarify when 'fresh' should be set to false, but overall it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but given both 'mint' and 'fresh' are already described in the input schema, the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it evaluates Solana memecoins through multiple risk filters and specifies the output (PASS/CAUTION/FAIL, 0-100 score, risk level, reasons). It is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling check_deployer, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or draw a contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for risk screening and winner concentration in a high-variance memecoin universe, and it explicitly warns that it does not promise alpha. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer check_coin over check_deployer, leaving the selection decision partially to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Bir creator/deployer-adresinin geçmiş-itibarını değerlendir (önceki-launch'ları kazandı-mı/rug-mu). Döner: 0-100 itibar-skoru + tier(güvenilir/riskli/ilk-kez) + geçmiş(launch/win/rug sayısı). Veri-kanıtlı: prior-winner 2.8x-lift, seri-dud kaçınılmalı.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| creator | Yes | creator/deployer cüzdan-adresi |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the behavioral burden. It openly states that the tool returns a 0-100 reputation score, a tier, and historical launch/win/rug counts, and even explains the data-backed signal (prior-winner 2.8x lift). It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only reputation lookup this 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences lead with the action, then output, then the data-backed rationale. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input type and the return values sufficiently for an agent to call it and interpret the result. It does not specify address format or edge-case behavior, but those are not critical given the schema's 100% parameter coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the single creator parameter as a wallet address at 100% coverage, so the description adds little new syntax. It adds context by calling it a creator/deployer address and linking it to past launches, which is useful but not necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'değerlendir' a creator/deployer address's past reputation, and enumerates concrete outputs (0-100 score, tier, launch/win/rug counts). This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling check_coin, which by name targets a coin rather than an address.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'seri-dud kaçınılmalı' note implies a vetting use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and check_coin is never mentioned as an alternative. The intended decision boundary between checking a coin and checking its deployer is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
check_coincheck_deployerClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Solana memecoin rug check for trading agents: pump.fun launches, calibrated rug risk, wallets, KOL.
Rug pull risk and on-chain forensics for tokens on Solana, Ethereum, Base and Robinhood.
Solana token due-diligence: 3-source fused risk verdict incl. LP-lock depth. $0.01 via x402.
Solana meme-coin trust scores, rug-risk flags, and wallet analytics from SolRadar.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
check_coin evaluates a token's risk profile, while check_deployer evaluates the deploying address's reputation. The two tools have clearly distinct targets and purposes, leaving no ambiguity about which to select.
Both tools follow the exact same check_<noun> pattern, making the naming predictable and consistent. The verb-noun convention is clean and immediately signals the tool's purpose.
With only 2 tools, the server sits at the borderline 'thin' level. Each tool covers a substantial domain, but the set feels minimal for what could be a richer filtering workflow.
The pair covers the core risk-evaluation workflow: assess a coin and assess its creator. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated tool for detailed holder or liquidity breakdown, but the primary filtering purpose is well served.
