BentCrypto Machine Payments

BentCrypto Token Security

token_security

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / address / description

Previous value: -"Solana token mint address."New value: +"Solana token mint address to inspect. Example: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112."

addedInput schema / properties / chain / description

Added value: +"Blockchain to analyze. Token Security currently supports Solana only."

changedOutput 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"
+}

First observedSep 2, 2026

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.

All BentCrypto Machine Payments tools Inspect

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

Need Help?