dev.vetagent/vetagent
REMOTE · VETAGENT.DEV · SCANNED SEP 20
Pre-trade safety check for AI agents: honeypot, tax, liquidity and rug risk before you buy.
Available components
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security63
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability62
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 938 tokens (~312/item across 3 items; 3 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 Management57
- Stability observed for 17 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage96
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 86% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
How do I install the dev.vetagent/vetagent MCP server?
dev.vetagent/vetagent is a hosted endpoint at https://vetagent.dev/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · vetagent.dev
claude mcp add --transport http dev-vetagent-vetagent 'https://vetagent.dev/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"dev-vetagent-vetagent": {
"url": "https://vetagent.dev/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"dev-vetagent-vetagent": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://vetagent.dev/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.dev-vetagent-vetagent] url = "https://vetagent.dev/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"dev-vetagent-vetagent": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://vetagent.dev/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add dev-vetagent-vetagent --url 'https://vetagent.dev/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
dev-vetagent-vetagent:
url: "https://vetagent.dev/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"dev-vetagent-vetagent": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://vetagent.dev/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add dev-vetagent-vetagent -t streamable-http -u 'https://vetagent.dev/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"dev-vetagent-vetagent": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://vetagent.dev/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
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.
- 20 Sept 26 0
- Tool “assess_token_risk” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 270 → 312 ▼ functional
- 17 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 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 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 14 Sept 26 0
- Tool “assess_token_risk” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- “assess_token_risk” reworded the description of “chain_hint” cosmetic
- 13 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 11 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 9 Sept 26 0
- Tool coverage: 67% → 100% ▲ functional
- Tool “find_new_hot_pools” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
- 8 Sept 26 +1
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “find_new_hot_pools” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
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 · Probed https://vetagent.dev/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=vetagent.dev | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 3 Sept 2026 | 2 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 2cb0a82aa06cea8f13693272d7c40379 |
| SANs: vetagent.dev, *.vetagent.dev | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of vetagent.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| vetagent.dev. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://vetagent.dev/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://vetagent.dev/mcp | Inconclusive | 405 |
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 →
assess_token_risk Assess Token Risk ~521
Safety check to run BEFORE buying, holding, or recommending a token. Returns an actionable verdict (low / medium / high / unknown), a 0-100 risk score, and the individual signals behind it. Covers on every chain: liquidity depth, trading-pair age, cross-chain presence, same-ticker impersonation. Covers on Ethereum, BSC and Base only: sell simulation (honeypot detection, buy/sell/transfer taxes), whether the contract is open source, and the aggregate verdicts of upstream security scanners. Covers on Solana: the mint/freeze authority and the SPL Token-2022 extensions (transfer fee, permanent delegate, transfer hook, frozen-by-default), plus the RugCheck score. No sell simulation runs on Solana, nor on the four other EVM chains accepted as a chain_hint (polygon, arbitrum, optimism, avalanche): nothing there tests whether a holder can sell, so the answer comes back 'unknown' rather than 'low'. No holder concentration on any chain -- on EVM it needs an oracle the benchmark holds out, and on Solana the upstream omits holders. IMPORTANT: risk_level 'unknown' means a critical check could not be completed. It is NOT a low-risk result and must not be used to justify a trade; evidence.data_gaps lists exactly what was missing, and unknown_kind says whose gap it is: 'infrastructure' comes with next_action 'retry' and retry_after_seconds; 'coverage' or 'mixed' come with next_action 'abstain'. 'confidence' measures how complete the input data was, not how safe the token is. Reports observable on-chain risk only. Not financial advice, does not size positions, and cannot see off-chain risk such as team behaviour, social engineering, or a rug executed through governance. Treat 'low' as 'no fatal signal found in the checks that ran', never as 'safe to buy'.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | Token contract address: ERC-20 (0x + 40 hex) or Solana (base58) |
| chain_hint | string | – | Optional chain name (ethereum / bsc / base / polygon / arbitrum / solana). Strongly recommended: Ethereum forks such as PulseChain inherit contract addresses, so the same address exists on several ch… |
| verbose | boolean | – | Return full upstream evidence. Off by default to save tokens. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | – |
| checked_at | string | – | When this answer was made, ISO-8601 UTC. |
| confidence | string | yes | How complete the input data was — not how safe the token is. |
| driver | object|null | – | The signal that decided the verdict: {name, category}. null when nothing above ok fired. |
| evidence | object | – | – |
| evidence_max_age_seconds | integer | – | Age of the oldest evidence used; 0 when every source answered live. |
| next_action | string | – | – |
| recommendation | string | – | – |
| retry_after_seconds | integer | – | – |
| risk_level | string | yes | 'unknown' means a critical check could not be completed. It is NOT a low-risk result and must not justify a trade. |
| risk_score | integer | yes | 0-100; higher is more dangerous |
| signals | array | yes | – |
| unknown_kind | string | – | Present only when risk_level is unknown. |
No examples provided.
find_new_hot_pools Find New Hot Pools ~105
Scan a chain for the newest and most active trading pools, returning name, token_address, price, liquidity, 24h volume and pool age. Discovery only. New pools carry inherently high risk and appearing here is NOT a safety endorsement — pass token_address straight to assess_token_risk for anything you intend to act on.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | string | – | Chain name, e.g. solana / ethereum / base / bsc |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | string | yes | – |
| checked_at | string | – | When this answer was made, ISO-8601 UTC. |
| count | integer | yes | How many pools are in `pools`. NOT how many were examined -- that is `scanned`. This field reported the fetched total beside a shorter list until 2026-09-08, so a caller reading it believed it had se… |
| network | string | yes | The upstream's own name for the chain, which differs from `chain` (eth vs ethereum). |
| pools | array | yes | – |
| scanned | integer | yes | How many distinct pools were examined before the limit was applied. Always >= count. |
| served_stale | array | – | Present only when an upstream was unreachable and cached data was used. Each entry names the source and its age in seconds. |
| sources_failed | array | yes | Which listings did NOT answer. A non-empty array means this is a PARTIAL scan: a smaller `scanned` here is a coverage gap, not a quiet market. Treat it as missing information, not as absence. |
| sources_ok | array | yes | Which of the two upstream listings answered. Both means a full scan. |
No examples provided.
get_token_liquidity Get Token Liquidity ~183
Liquidity snapshot for a token's primary trading pair: price, 24h volume, pair count and the chains it trades on. Check 'status' before using the numbers. 'ok' means real data. 'unavailable' means the upstream request failed, which does NOT mean the token has no liquidity. 'not_found' means no trading pair exists for this address at all. 'unpriced' means pairs exist but no source has costed them, so liquidity_usd is null and the depth is unknown -- this is NOT a report of zero liquidity. 'drained' means every pool on the token's own chain reports its depth and every one is empty: there is nothing to sell into.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | Token contract address |
| chain_hint | string | – | Optional chain name; disambiguates forks that share addresses |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | – |
| chains | array | – | – |
| checked_at | string | – | When this answer was made, ISO-8601 UTC. |
| liquidity_usd | number|null | – | – |
| pairs_total | integer | – | – |
| price_usd | number | – | – |
| served_stale | array | – | Present only when an upstream was unreachable and this answer used cached data. Each entry names the source and how many seconds old it was. |
| status | string | yes | – |
| volume_24h_usd | number | – | – |
No examples provided.
What is the dev.vetagent/vetagent MCP server?
dev.vetagent/vetagent is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as dev.vetagent/vetagent. Pre-trade safety check for AI agents: honeypot, tax, liquidity and rug risk before you buy. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://vetagent.dev/mcp).
Is the dev.vetagent/vetagent MCP server safe to use?
dev.vetagent/vetagent scores 70 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. 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 dev.vetagent/vetagent MCP server expose?
dev.vetagent/vetagent exposes 3 tools: assess_token_risk, get_token_liquidity, find_new_hot_pools. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 809 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the dev.vetagent/vetagent MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to dev.vetagent/vetagent without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the dev.vetagent/vetagent MCP server still maintained?
dev.vetagent/vetagent 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.