Skip to content
verify mcp Beta VerifyMCP is currently in beta. If you notice any issues, get in touch and we’ll put it right.

Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi

NPM · VERDICT-FINANCE-MCP · SCANNED SEP 20

Verdict, the due-diligence house for DeFi: keyless ratings, methodology and a hack incident feed.

Available components

+3 this week 81 Trust /100
Trust breakdown (7 categories)

How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →

Supply Chain Security98
  • No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
  • No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
  • No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
  • 31 of 96 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency45
Schema Quality & AI Usability68
  • AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
  • Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1895 tokens (~236/item across 8 items; 8 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
  • Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management90
  • Stability observed for 27 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
  • 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
  • 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
  • No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
  • We read all 8 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
  • An AI judge read all 9 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
  • Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Install

How do I install the Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi MCP server?

Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y verdict-finance-mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.

npm · verdict-finance-mcp

# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp -- npx -y verdict-finance-mcp
// .cursor/mcp.json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "verdict-finance-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}
// .vscode/mcp.json
{
  "servers": {
    "charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "verdict-finance-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}
# add to Codex CLI
codex mcp add charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp -- npx -y verdict-finance-mcp
// opencode.json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
      "type": "local",
      "command": [
        "npx",
        "-y",
        "verdict-finance-mcp"
      ],
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
# add to OpenClaw
openclaw mcp add charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp --command npx --arg -y --arg verdict-finance-mcp
# ~/.hermes/config.yaml
mcp_servers:
  charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp:
    command: "npx"
    args: ["-y", "verdict-finance-mcp"]
// ~/.netclaw/config/netclaw.json
{
  "McpServers": {
    "charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
      "Transport": "stdio",
      "Command": "npx",
      "Arguments": [
        "-y",
        "verdict-finance-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}
# add to Vellum
assistant mcp add charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp -t stdio -c npx -a -y verdict-finance-mcp
// mcp.json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "verdict-finance-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}
Changelog

Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.

  • 19 Sept 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 17 Sept 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 15 Sept 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 13 Sept 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 10 Sept 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 8 Sept 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 6 Sept 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 4 Sept 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

Diagnostics

Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.

Captured 20 Sept 2026 · Analysed npm/verdict-finance-mcp@0.4.0

Provenance No attestation

The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.

Result No attestation
Ecosystem npm

Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →

Dependencies 96 packages
Packages resolved 96
Stale 31
Tree resolution Complete

Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →

MCP tools · 8 exposed · ~1,543 tokens

The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →

Tool Tokens
get_methodology ~82

The published Verdict ratings methodology: how many testable criteria each entity type is scored on, which domains those criteria sit in, and the AAA to D grade scale with the composite-score band each grade needs. Read this to explain or sanity-check a grade rather than guessing at what it measures. No arguments, no API key. Example: get_methodology({}).

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_rating ~142

Get the Verdict rating for one DeFi entity: letter grade, composite score 0-100, and public metadata. Identify it by slug (e.g. 'aave-v4') or UUID. Keyless. For the per-domain scores behind the grade, use get_rating_breakdown. Example: get_rating({ entity_type: 'protocol', identifier: 'aave-v4' }).

NameTypeReqDescription
entity_typestringyesThe kind of entity: protocol, chain, token, oracle, vault, organisation, or bridge.
identifierstringyesThe entity's slug (e.g. 'aave-v4' or 'ethereum') or UUID.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_rating_breakdown ~158

The per-domain scores behind one entity's Verdict grade: which domains carried the rating and which dragged it down, alongside the intrinsic (pre-dependency) pair. Needs an API key: set VERDICT_API_KEY in this server's environment. Without one this tool answers with where to get a key, and get_rating still returns the headline grade and composite score keylessly. Example: get_rating_breakdown({ entity_type: 'protocol', slug: 'aave-v4' }).

NameTypeReqDescription
entity_typestringyesThe kind of entity: protocol, chain, token, oracle, vault, organisation, or bridge.
slugstringyesThe entity's slug, e.g. 'aave-v4' or 'ethereum'.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_recent_incidents ~541

Hack incidents across DeFi, newest first. Every incident is corroborated by more than one public hack-reporting source before it appears, so the feed lags the first rumour of an exploit by design and is not a real-time exploit alarm. Incidents carry a confidence tier in `status`: corroborated, then confirmed. By default only confirmed incidents are returned, which is exactly the set this tool has always returned; pass min_status: 'corroborated' to also see multi-source leads that have not yet reached confirmation. Poll with `since` set to the newest detected_at you have already seen. An incident that escalates keeps its incident_id and refreshes its detected_at, so the same id reappears at the top of a `since` poll at its new tier: key on incident_id and expect to see an incident more than once as it climbs. A tier never goes down in the feed. Covers protocols, including ones Verdict does not rate: `matched_protocol` says whether the incident matched a rated protocol, and matching re-runs when an incident escalates and its payload improves, so matched_protocol reads as of the incident's current tier; it is still never retroactive when Verdict's own coverage grows. An incident is a signal to look, never an automatic downgrade: a matched entity may be flagged under review, but re-rating is always a human decision, so do not infer a grade change from an incident appearing here. Examples: get_recent_incidents({ limit: 10 }), get_recent_incidents({ since: '2026-08-01T00:00:00Z' }), get_recent_incidents({ min_status: 'corroborated' }).

NameTypeReqDescription
limitintegerOptional maximum number of incidents to return (default 25, cap 200).
min_statusstringOptional lowest confidence tier to return. Omit for the default of confirmed, which is the same set this tool has always returned. Pass 'corroborated' to also see multi-source leads that have not yet…
sincestringOptional ISO datetime (e.g. '2026-08-01T00:00:00Z'). Returns only incidents detected after it. Use the timestamp of the newest incident you have already seen to poll for what is new.
slugstringOptional Verdict protocol slug (e.g. 'aave-v4'). Exact match, not a search.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

list_ratings ~149

Browse Verdict's DeFi ratings for one entity type, optionally filtered by category or chain. Returns entities with their letter grade + composite score, best-rated first. Example: list_ratings({ entity_type: 'protocol', category: 'lending' }).

NameTypeReqDescription
categorystringOptional category filter, lowercase, e.g. 'lending'.
chainstringOptional chain filter by chain slug, e.g. 'ethereum' or 'base'.
entity_typestringyesThe kind of entity to browse: protocol, chain, token, oracle, vault, organisation, or bridge.
limitintegerMax results (default 25, cap 50).

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

quantum_readiness ~121

Post-quantum cryptographic readiness for blockchains, data by LayerQu. With a chain slug: that chain's QRI (0-100), readiness band, migration stage, and hybrid-signature status. Without a slug: the full league table of 72+ chains, including ones Verdict has not rated. Companion data only - never part of a Verdict grade. Example: quantum_readiness({ chain: 'ethereum' }).

NameTypeReqDescription
chainstringOptional chain slug (e.g. 'ethereum'). Omit for the full league table.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

request_coverage ~212

Ask Verdict to rate an entity it does not cover yet, and get a reference id back. Requesting coverage never buys a grade or moves one: ratings stay independent, and the resulting rating is public either way, readable by anyone through these tools. The team replies to the email address you pass, so ask the user for a real one first. Example: request_coverage({ entity_name: 'Morpho Blue', entity_type: 'protocol', contact_email: 'team@example.com' }).

NameTypeReqDescription
contact_emailstringyesEmail the Verdict team replies to. Ask the user for it; never invent one.
entity_namestringyesThe entity to cover, as it is publicly known, e.g. 'Morpho Blue'.
entity_typestringyesWhat kind of entity it is: protocol, chain, token, oracle, vault, organisation, or bridge.
notestringOptional context: links, chains it is live on, why it matters, any deadline.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

search_ratings ~138

Verdict (the due-diligence house for DeFi) rates DeFi across 7 entity types: protocol, chain, token, oracle, vault, organisation, bridge. Search those ratings by name or keyword, and pass entity_type to narrow to one type. Returns matching entities with their letter grade + composite score. Example: search_ratings({ query: 'aave' }).

NameTypeReqDescription
entity_typestringOptional: restrict to one entity type. Omit to search all 7 types at once.
querystringyesName or keyword to search for, e.g. 'aave' or 'chainlink'.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

Common questions

What is the Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi MCP server?

Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.charles-verdict/verdict-finance-mcp. Verdict, the due-diligence house for DeFi: keyless ratings, methodology and a hack incident feed. This page covers its npm package (verdict-finance-mcp).

Is the Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi MCP server safe to use?

Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi scores 81 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 20 September 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.

What tools does the Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi MCP server expose?

Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi exposes 8 tools: search_ratings, get_rating, list_ratings, quantum_readiness, get_recent_incidents, and 3 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,543 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

Is the Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi MCP server still maintained?

Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 20 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.

What licence is the Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi MCP server under?

Verdict: the due-diligence house for DeFi declares the Apache-2.0 licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.