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
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
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (Apache-2.0).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 22 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
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
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
claude mcp add charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp -- npx -y verdict-finance-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"verdict-finance-mcp"
]
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"verdict-finance-mcp"
]
}
}
} codex mcp add charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp -- npx -y verdict-finance-mcp
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
"type": "local",
"command": [
"npx",
"-y",
"verdict-finance-mcp"
],
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp --command npx --arg -y --arg verdict-finance-mcp
mcp_servers:
charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp:
command: "npx"
args: ["-y", "verdict-finance-mcp"] {
"McpServers": {
"charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
"Transport": "stdio",
"Command": "npx",
"Arguments": [
"-y",
"verdict-finance-mcp"
]
}
}
} assistant mcp add charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp -t stdio -c npx -a -y verdict-finance-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"charles-verdict-verdict-finance-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"verdict-finance-mcp"
]
}
}
} 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.
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 →
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 →
get_methodology How Verdict scores ~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 Get a Verdict 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' }).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_type | string | yes | The kind of entity: protocol, chain, token, oracle, vault, organisation, or bridge. |
| identifier | string | yes | The entity's slug (e.g. 'aave-v4' or 'ethereum') or UUID. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_rating_breakdown Domain breakdown behind a rating ~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' }).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_type | string | yes | The kind of entity: protocol, chain, token, oracle, vault, organisation, or bridge. |
| slug | string | yes | The entity's slug, e.g. 'aave-v4' or 'ethereum'. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_recent_incidents Recent hack 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' }).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | Optional maximum number of incidents to return (default 25, cap 200). |
| min_status | string | – | Optional 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… |
| since | string | – | Optional 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. |
| slug | string | – | Optional Verdict protocol slug (e.g. 'aave-v4'). Exact match, not a search. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_ratings List / browse Verdict 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' }).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | Optional category filter, lowercase, e.g. 'lending'. |
| chain | string | – | Optional chain filter by chain slug, e.g. 'ethereum' or 'base'. |
| entity_type | string | yes | The kind of entity to browse: protocol, chain, token, oracle, vault, organisation, or bridge. |
| limit | integer | – | Max results (default 25, cap 50). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
quantum_readiness Post-quantum readiness (LayerQu) ~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' }).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | string | – | Optional chain slug (e.g. 'ethereum'). Omit for the full league table. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
request_coverage Request Verdict 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' }).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_email | string | yes | Email the Verdict team replies to. Ask the user for it; never invent one. |
| entity_name | string | yes | The entity to cover, as it is publicly known, e.g. 'Morpho Blue'. |
| entity_type | string | yes | What kind of entity it is: protocol, chain, token, oracle, vault, organisation, or bridge. |
| note | string | – | Optional context: links, chains it is live on, why it matters, any deadline. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_ratings Search Verdict 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' }).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_type | string | – | Optional: restrict to one entity type. Omit to search all 7 types at once. |
| query | string | yes | Name or keyword to search for, e.g. 'aave' or 'chainlink'. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
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.