Skip to main content
Glama

hostdefi-x402

by io.github.verixiaapps

token_risk_deep

PAID ($0.25/call). Deep HostDeFi report in one call: the current A+-F verdict with authority/holder signals, the FULL dated safety history for the token, and a derived trend block (grade movement, liquidity trajectory, worst drawdown, days tracked). All figures are computed from recorded rows — no projections. History depth accrues from 2026-08-16. Call once WITHOUT x402_payment to receive the x402 payment requirements (an accepts array); pay one of them with any x402 client/wallet, then call again with x402_payment set to the base64 X-PAYMENT payload. You are only charged when a result actually comes back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYessolana, ethereum, base, arbitrum, …
limitNohistory rows returned, oldest first (default 365)
addressYestoken contract address / mint
x402_paymentNobase64 X-PAYMENT payload (omit on the first call to get payment requirements)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.25/call), the payment mechanism, the data source ('computed from recorded rows — no projections'), the history depth start date, and the condition for being charged. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose and cost, then details the return contents, then the payment workflow. Every sentence adds value; it is compact given the complexity of the payment flow. Not excessively wordy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers what is returned (verdict, history, trend block), how to pay (two-step process), the pricing, the data source, and the charging condition. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure and usage conditions. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a small clarification for x402_payment ('omit on the first call to get payment requirements') but does not meaningfully enhance the semantics of chain, address, or limit beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states this is a paid deep report for a token: 'Deep HostDeFi report in one call' with a verdict, history, and trend block. It is visually distinct from the sibling token_risk_verdict, which likely returns a simpler verdict. The verb 'report' is specific, and the resource (token risk) is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains the two-step payment flow: call once without x402_payment to receive requirements, then pay and call again. It also states the cost and that you are only charged when a result returns. This is precise usage guidance with no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All hostdefi-x402 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools target the same token-risk domain: token_risk_verdict, token_risk_deep, token_report, and scan_token all surface authority/holder/safety signals, and token_report vs token_risk_deep have nearly overlapping full-history/report scopes. An agent choosing between the cheap verdict, the deep history version, and the full due-diligence report can easily mis-select.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is split roughly half between verb-led terms and half between noun/resource terms: predict_markets and scan_token vs token_risk_deep and radar_alerts. This is readable, but it is not a consistent verb_noun grammar across the tool set.

Tool Count4/5

Fifteen tools is at the upper edge of a reasonable tool scope, and the catalog spans token risk, launches, prediction markets, swaps, wallets, and x402 billing. It is not overly large, but having three separate token-reporting tools makes the set feel slightly more redundant than its count alone suggests.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its stated domain fairly well: x402 pricing, API key purchase, free token scans, paid deep reports, wallet exposure, swap preview/execution, and prediction-market data are all represented. The main gap is API-key lifecycle management such as checking status or remaining calls, but no core investigation workflow is left as a dead end.

Resources