Skip to main content
Glama

BentCrypto Machine Payments

by io.github.ghstaking

BentCrypto Token Risk

token_risk
Read-onlyIdempotent

Paid pre-trade token risk analysis. Supports Solana and Base. The HTTP transport returns an x402 challenge before private analysis executes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoBlockchain to analyze. Supported values are Solana and Base; defaults to Solana when omitted.solana
addressYesToken mint or contract address on the selected chain. Example Solana: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112. Example Base: 0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
riskNoRisk assessment generated from available on-chain and market evidence.
chainNoBlockchain analyzed.
addressNoToken mint or contract address analyzed.
successNoWhether the analysis request completed successfully.
metadataNoAnalysis provenance and execution metadata.
confidenceNoEvidence confidence and coverage information.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Previous value: -"Token mint or contract address."New value: +"Token mint or contract address on the selected chain. Example Solana: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112. Example Base: 0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006."
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain / description
      Added value: +"Blockchain to analyze. Supported values are Solana and Base; defaults to Solana when omitted."
    • changedOutput 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"
+}
  2. First observed

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.

All BentCrypto Machine Payments toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources