SPL token rug-risk signals: mint/freeze authority status (revoked = safer), top-1/top-10 holder concentration, and risk flags. Not a honeypot/LP-lock checker. Costs $0.01 USDC per call (x402, Solana mainnet).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | SPL token mint address (base58) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing a real cost per call, the x402 payment mechanism, the network, and a specific limitation. It does not mention caching, latency, or exact output shape, but the most operationally relevant behavior is disclosed.
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: two sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and output categories, then provide scope limitations and cost/network details. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 main selection and invocation needs: what the tool measures, what it does not measure, the required input, the network, and the cost. It could be slightly more specific about the exact risk flags or return format, but nothing essential is missing.
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 input schema already fully documents the single 'mint' parameter as an SPL token mint address in base58, so the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. With 100% schema description coverage, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns SPL token rug-risk signals and specifies the signal categories: mint/freeze authority status, top holder concentration, and risk flags. It differentiates itself by explicitly saying it is not a honeypot/LP-lock checker, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.
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 the tool is for assessing token rug risk and provides an explicit scope exclusion: it is not a honeypot/LP-lock checker. It also surfaces the $0.01 USDC cost and Solana mainnet context, which helps the agent decide whether to invoke it. However, it does not name an alternative tool or state a concrete 'use this when...' condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are tightly scoped and cross-referenced, but the set contains overlapping families: liquidation tools (alert/scan/history/stats/leaders/recent/heatmap) and redundant snapshots like get_market_snapshot vs get_trade_context, get_last_liquidation vs get_recent_liquidations, and get_cascade_forecast_free vs get_cascade_forecast. Agents will need to read descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent get_<domain>_<detail> snake_case pattern, which makes the API predictable. The only real deviations are the bare 'pricing' tool and the 'free' suffix on taster variants.
At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 3-15 well-scoped range and crosses the 50-tool extreme threshold. The count is inflated by numerous paid/free taster pairs and many overlapping liquidation variants.
The surface covers prices, funding, open interest, orderbooks, liquidations, wallet/token data, Solana network health, DeFi TVL, and stablecoin flows—broad coverage for a crypto data feed. Gaps like historical OHLC/price candles, a machine-readable symbol list, and pagination endpoints are workable around but would round it out.