A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceMCP server for autonomous agents to rug-check tokens, monitor liquidity drains, and get market briefs, with pay-per-call via x402.
3
MIT
BentCrypto Machine Payments
Server Details
Paid token risk and security intelligence for AI agents over MCP with x402 payments.
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
Available Tools
2 toolstoken_riskBentCrypto Token RiskARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Paid pre-trade token risk analysis. Supports Solana and Base. The HTTP transport returns an x402 challenge before private analysis executes.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Blockchain to analyze. Supported values are Solana and Base; defaults to Solana when omitted. | solana |
| address | Yes | Token mint or contract address on the selected chain. Example Solana: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112. Example Base: 0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| risk | No | Risk assessment generated from available on-chain and market evidence. |
| chain | No | Blockchain analyzed. |
| address | No | Token mint or contract address analyzed. |
| success | No | Whether the analysis request completed successfully. |
| metadata | No | Analysis provenance and execution metadata. |
| confidence | No | Evidence confidence and coverage information. |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by disclosing that the tool is paid, that the HTTP transport returns an x402 challenge before execution, and that the analysis is private. This helps the agent anticipate the payment/auth flow without contradicting the read-only hint.
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?
Three short sentences, each contributing new information: the paid nature and purpose, chain support, and transport-level challenge behavior. The most important qualifier ('Paid pre-trade') is front-loaded, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema contents.
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?
Given the output schema is present and the annotations cover safety, the description captures the essential call context: purpose, supported chains, and the payment challenge flow. It does not spell out the exact risk-analysis output fields, but the output schema likely handles that, and the only minor gap is explaining what 'private analysis' means operationally.
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%, and the parameter descriptions already include chain enum values, defaults, and concrete address examples. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating chain support, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs paid pre-trade token risk analysis and names the supported chains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling token_security, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation, but the verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is used before trading and supports Solana/Base, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of token_security. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or conditions under which this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
token_securityBentCrypto Token SecurityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Paid Solana token-control analysis covering mint/freeze authority and Token-2022 control risks. The HTTP transport returns an x402 challenge before private analysis executes.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Blockchain to analyze. Token Security currently supports Solana only. | solana |
| address | Yes | Solana token mint address to inspect. Example: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| risk | No | Security and token-control risk findings. |
| chain | No | Blockchain analyzed; Token Security currently supports Solana only. |
| address | No | Solana token mint address analyzed. |
| success | No | Whether the security analysis completed successfully. |
| metadata | No | Analysis provenance and execution metadata. |
| confidence | No | Evidence confidence and coverage information. |
| token_2022 | No | Token-2022 extension and control findings when applicable. |
| mint_authority | No | Mint-authority finding when exposed by the analysis engine. |
| freeze_authority | No | Freeze-authority finding when exposed by the analysis engine. |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints by disclosing that the tool is paid and that its HTTP transport returns an x402 challenge before the private analysis runs. This is important operational behavior not present in annotations.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence captures purpose and scope, and the second flags the payment/challenge behavior. All included information earns its place.
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 a rich output schema, 100% schema documentation, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete for invoking the tool correctly. The only notable gap is lack of guidance about how to satisfy the x402 challenge or when to choose the sibling token_risk tool, but the essentials are covered.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the Solana chain constraint and the example mint address. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific resource ('Solana token-control analysis') and what it covers ('mint/freeze authority and Token-2022 control risks'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'token_risk', but the naming and paid/Solana framing make the purpose reasonably distinct.
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 communicates clear context: this is a paid analysis, Solana-only, and requires handling an x402 challenge before execution. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of token_risk, but the 'Solana only' constraint and payment gate give sufficient usage boundaries.
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.
2 tool updates
- Changed
token_risk3 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / address / descriptionPrevious value: -"Token mint or contract address."New value: +"Token mint or contract address on the selected chain. Example Solana: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112. Example Base: 0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006." - added
Input schema / properties / chain / descriptionAdded value: +"Blockchain to analyze. Supported values are Solana and Base; defaults to Solana when omitted." - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "additionalProperties": true, + "description": "Paid token-risk analysis result. Exact evidence fields depend on the selected chain and available provider coverage.", + "properties": { + "address": { + "description": "Token mint or contract address analyzed.", + "type": "string" + }, + "chain": { + "description": "Blockchain analyzed.", + "enum": [ + "solana", + "base" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "confidence": { + "additionalProperties": true, + "description": "Evidence confidence and coverage information.", + "properties": { + "coverage_percent": { + "description": "Percentage of expected evidence covered when available.", + "maximum": 100, + "minimum": 0, + "type": "number" + } + }, + "type": "object" + }, + "metadata": { + "additionalProperties": true, + "description": "Analysis provenance and execution metadata.", + "type": "object" + }, + "risk": { + "additionalProperties": true, + "description": "Risk assessment generated from available on-chain and market evidence.", + "properties": { + "level": { + "description": "Machine-readable risk level when available.", + "type": "string" + }, + "score": { + "description": "Normalized risk score when available.", + "type": "number" + } + }, + "type": "object" + }, + "success": { + "description": "Whether the analysis request completed successfully.", + "type": "boolean" + } + }, + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
token_security3 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / address / descriptionPrevious value: -"Solana token mint address."New value: +"Solana token mint address to inspect. Example: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112." - added
Input schema / properties / chain / descriptionAdded value: +"Blockchain to analyze. Token Security currently supports Solana only." - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "additionalProperties": true, + "description": "Paid Solana token-security analysis result. Additional fields may be returned as the security engine evolves.", + "properties": { + "address": { + "description": "Solana token mint address analyzed.", + "type": "string" + }, + "chain": { + "description": "Blockchain analyzed; Token Security currently supports Solana only.", + "enum": [ + "solana" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "confidence": { + "additionalProperties": true, + "description": "Evidence confidence and coverage information.", + "type": "object" + }, + "freeze_authority": { + "description": "Freeze-authority finding when exposed by the analysis engine." + }, + "metadata": { + "additionalProperties": true, + "description": "Analysis provenance and execution metadata.", + "type": "object" + }, + "mint_authority": { + "description": "Mint-authority finding when exposed by the analysis engine." + }, + "risk": { + "additionalProperties": true, + "description": "Security and token-control risk findings.", + "type": "object" + }, + "success": { + "description": "Whether the security analysis completed successfully.", + "type": "boolean" + }, + "token_2022": { + "additionalProperties": true, + "description": "Token-2022 extension and control findings when applicable.", + "type": "object" + } + }, + "type": "object" +}
2 tool updates
- First observed
token_risk - First observed
token_security
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming 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 asio.github.acme/serveralso 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.jsonon 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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Paid pre-execution risk verification for AI agents over MCP and x402.
- mcpOAuthai.agentgates
Confidential compute and inference sold to agents over x402 USDC, plus an agent wallet over MCP.
Policy-gated MCP treasury for AI agents — x402 subscribe, 50+ tools, multi-chain.
37 paid x402 MCP tools for OSINT, prediction markets, web intel, and agent security on Base USDC.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables agents to access production-grade paid MCP tools with real on-chain x402 v2 settlement, including EVM wallet risk scoring, payload normalization, and facilitator discovery, all discoverable via Bazaar-compatible metadata.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceTrust intelligence MCP server for AI agents. 19 tools for identity stamps, reputation scoring (0-100), agent registry, forensic audit trails, ERC-8004 bridge, and A2A passports via x402 USDC micropayments.191Apache 2.0
opendexterofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI agents to search, pay for, and call paid APIs using the x402 protocol, with automatic USDC settlement.2MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The two tools are broadly distinct: token_risk is a general pre-trade risk analysis across Solana and Base, while token_security targets Solana-specific mint/freeze and Token-2022 controls. The semantic overlap between 'risk' and 'security' could cause mild confusion, but the descriptions clarify different scopes.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools use the same token_ prefix and underscore-separated noun structure. The naming pattern is perfectly consistent and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
Two tools is minimal and sits at the low end of appropriateness for a specialized paid-analysis server. The count is not absurdly thin given the niche, but the surface feels sparse.
Completeness4/5
The pair covers general risk screening and a deep Solana control check, which is a reasonable core offering. Minor gaps remain, such as no Base-specific security/control analysis or batch/portfolio checks, but agents can work around these for basic paid risk assessment.