gate-info-riskcheck

name	gate-info-riskcheck
version	2026.3.12-1
updated	2026-03-12
description	Token and address risk assessment. Use this skill whenever the user asks about token, contract, or address safety. Trigger phrases include: is this token safe, check contract risk, is this address safe, honeypot, rug. MCP tools: info_compliance_check_token_security, info_coin_get_coin_info; Address mode: info_onchain_get_address_info.

gate-info-riskcheck

Security guardian Skill. The user inputs a token name or contract address, the system calls the contract security detection Tool to retrieve 30+ risk detection results, tax analysis, holder concentration, and name risk data. The LLM aggregates the results into a structured risk assessment report. Address compliance checking will be added in a future phase.

Trigger Scenarios: User mentions a token/contract address + keywords like safe, risk, check, audit, honeypot, rug, contract security, scam.

---

Routing Rules

User Intent	Keywords/Pattern	Action
Token contract security check	"is this token safe" "any risk with PEPE contract" "check 0x... contract"	Execute this Skill (Token Security mode)
Address risk check	"is this address safe" "is this a blacklisted address"	Execute this Skill (Address Risk mode — currently degraded)
Single coin analysis	"analyze SOL for me"	Route to gate-info-coinanalysis
Address tracking	"track this address" "fund flow"	Route to gate-info-addresstracker
Token on-chain analysis	"on-chain chip distribution"	Route to gate-info-tokenonchain
Project due diligence	"is this project legit" "team background"	Route to gate-info-coinanalysis (fundamentals focus)

---

Execution Workflow

Mode A: Token Security Check (Core Mode — Ready)

Step 1: Intent Recognition & Parameter Extraction

Extract from user input:

• token: Token symbol (e.g., PEPE, SHIB) — mutually exclusive with address
• address: Contract address (e.g., 0x...) — mutually exclusive with token
• chain: Chain name (eth / bsc / solana / base / arb, etc.) — required

Parameter Completion Strategy:

• If user provides only token without chain: ask "Please specify the chain (e.g., eth, bsc, solana)"
• If user provides a contract address without chain: attempt to infer from address format (0x prefix likely EVM chain, but still confirm specific chain)
• If user asks about major coins (BTC, ETH): inform them "Major coins typically have no contract security risks. If you need to check, please specify the wrapped token or a Meme token on a specific chain"

Step 2: Call 2 MCP Tools in Parallel

Step	MCP Tool	Parameters	Retrieved Data	Parallel
1a	info_compliance_check_token_security	token={token} or address={address}, chain={chain}, scope="full", lang="en"	Risk level, 30+ risk items, tax analysis, holder concentration, name risk, honeypot detection, open-source status	Yes
1b	info_coin_get_coin_info	query={token or symbol}	Token basic info (project name, sector, listed exchanges — supplementary context)	Yes

Both Tools are called in parallel with no dependencies.

Step 3: LLM Aggregation — Generate Risk Report

Pass the security detection data and fundamentals to the LLM to generate the assessment report using the template below.

Mode B: Address Risk Check (Degraded Mode)

info_compliance_check_address_risk is not yet available (P3 phase). Currently only info_onchain_get_address_info can provide basic address information.

Step	MCP Tool	Parameters	Retrieved Data	Status
1	info_onchain_get_address_info	address={address}, chain={chain}	Basic address info, balance, transaction count	✅ Available
2	info_compliance_check_address_risk	—	Address compliance risk labels	❌ Not ready

Degradation Handling: Inform the user "Address compliance risk detection is under development. Currently only basic address information is available. For token contract security checks, please provide the token name or contract address."

---

Report Template (Token Security Mode)

## {token} Contract Security Report

### 1. Risk Overview

| Metric | Result |
|--------|--------|
| Chain | {chain} |
| Contract Address | {address} |
| Overall Risk Level | {risk_level_text} ({highest_risk_level}) |
| High-Risk Items | {high_risk_num} |
| Medium-Risk Items | {middle_risk_num} |
| Low-Risk Items | {low_risk_num} |
| Honeypot Detected | {is_honeypot ? "⛔ Yes" : "✅ No"} |
| Open Source | {is_open_source ? "✅ Yes" : "⚠️ No"} |

### 2. High-Risk Item Details

{If high-risk items exist, list each:}

| Risk Item | Description | Value |
|-----------|------------|-------|
| {risk_name_1} | {risk_desc_1} | {risk_value_1} |
| {risk_name_2} | {risk_desc_2} | {risk_value_2} |
| ... | ... | ... |

{If no high-risk items: "✅ No high-risk items detected"}

### 3. Tax Analysis

| Metric | Value | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Buy Tax | {buy_tax}% | {Normal/Elevated/Extreme} |
| Sell Tax | {sell_tax}% | {Normal/Elevated/Extreme} |
| Transfer Tax | {transfer_tax}% | {Normal/Elevated/Extreme} |

{If multiple DEX pools have different tax rates, list the major pool breakdowns}

### 4. Holder Concentration

| Metric | Value | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Holder Count | {holder_count} | {Many/Normal/Low} |
| Top 10 Holder % | {top10_percent}% | {Normal/High/Extremely Concentrated} |
| Top 100 Holder % | {top100_percent}% | — |
| Developer Holdings | {dev_holding_percent}% | {Normal/High} |
| Insider Holdings | {insider_percent}% | {Normal/High} |
| Largest Single Holder | {max_holder_percent}% | {Normal/High} |

### 5. Name Risk

| Metric | Result |
|--------|--------|
| Domain Token | {is_domain_token ? "⚠️ Yes" : "✅ No"} |
| Contains Sensitive Words | {is_sensitive ? "⚠️ Yes" : "✅ No"} |
| Sensitive Words | {sensitive_words} |

### 6. Project Basic Info (Supplementary)

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Project Name | {project_name} |
| Sector | {category} |
| Listed on Major Exchanges | {exchange_list} |



{LLM generates a 3-5 sentence comprehensive risk assessment:}
 Overall contract safety level
 Most critical risk items (if any)
 Whether holder concentration is healthy
 Whether tax rates are reasonable
 Whether further manual audit is recommended



{Auto-generated explicit warnings based on detection results:}
 Honeypot detection (if applicable)
 High tax warning (if applicable)
 Excessive holder concentration (if applicable)
 Contract not open-source (if applicable)

---

Decision Logic

Condition	Assessment
is_honeypot == true	Highest-level warning: "⛔ Detected as honeypot contract — extremely likely unable to sell. Do NOT purchase."
is_open_source == false	Flag "Contract is not open-source — code logic cannot be audited, elevated risk"
buy_tax > 5% or sell_tax > 5%	Flag "Abnormally high tax rate — extreme trading costs"
buy_tax > 10% or sell_tax > 10%	Flag "⛔ Extreme tax rate — suspected malicious contract"
top10_percent > 50%	Flag "Highly concentrated holdings — insider/whale dump risk"
top10_percent > 80%	Flag "⛔ Extremely concentrated holdings — dump risk is critical"
dev_holding_percent > 10%	Flag "Developer holdings are elevated — watch for sell-off risk"
holder_count < 100	Flag "Extremely few holders — insufficient liquidity and decentralization"
high_risk_num > 0	List each high-risk item with explanation
high_risk_num == 0 && middle_risk_num <= 2	Flag "Contract security check passed — no significant risks detected"
is_domain_token == true	Flag "This is a domain token — unrelated to the project of the same name. Verify carefully."
is_sensitive == true	Flag "Token name contains sensitive words — possible impersonation/fraud risk"
Any Tool returns empty/error	Skip that section; note "Data unavailable" in the report

---

Risk Level Mapping

highest_risk_level Value	Risk Level	Label	Description
0	Safe	✅ Safe	No risk items detected
1	Low Risk	Low Risk	Only low-risk items present
2	Medium Risk	Medium Risk	Medium-risk items present — monitor
3	High Risk	High Risk	High-risk items present — exercise extreme caution
is_honeypot=true	Critical Risk	⛔ Critical Risk	Honeypot contract — strongly advise staying away

---

Error Handling

Error Type	Handling
Missing chain parameter	Prompt user: "Please specify the chain (e.g., eth, bsc, solana, base, arb)"
Neither token nor address provided	Prompt user: "Please provide a token symbol or contract address"
Contract address does not exist / unrecognizable	Prompt user to verify the address and confirm the chain
Token is a major coin (BTC/ETH, etc.)	Inform: "Major coins typically have no contract security risks. For contract token checks, specify the wrapped token or Meme token on a specific chain"
check_token_security timeout/error	Return error message; suggest trying again later
Address risk query (currently unavailable)	Inform: "Address compliance detection is under development." Guide user to gate-info-addresstracker for basic address info
User inputs a regular address thinking it's a contract	Attempt detection; if empty result, inform "This may not be a contract address. For address information, use the Address Tracker feature"

---

Cross-Skill Routing

User Follow-up Intent	Route To
"Analyze this coin for me"	gate-info-coinanalysis
"What about on-chain chip distribution?"	gate-info-tokenonchain
"Any recent news?"	gate-news-briefing
"Track this address"	gate-info-addresstracker
"Compare this with XX"	gate-info-coincompare
"How is this coin's price action?"	gate-info-trendanalysis

---

Available Tools & Degradation Notes

PRD-Defined Tool	Actually Available Tool	Status	Degradation Strategy
info_compliance_check_token_security	info_compliance_check_token_security	✅ Ready	—
info_coin_get_coin_info	info_coin_get_coin_info	✅ Ready	—
info_onchain_get_address_info	info_onchain_get_address_info	✅ Ready	Address mode can retrieve basic info
info_compliance_check_address_risk	—	❌ Not ready (P3)	Address compliance risk detection unavailable — inform user and guide to address tracker

---

Safety Rules

1. Mandatory honeypot warning: When is_honeypot=true is detected, display the "⛔ Critical Risk" warning in the most prominent position — never downplay
2. No investment advice: Risk assessment is based on on-chain data and must include a "not investment advice" disclaimer
3. No absolute safety guarantees: Even if all checks pass, state that "automated detection cannot cover all risks"
4. Data transparency: Label detection data source and timestamp
5. Flag missing data: When any dimension has no data, explicitly inform the user — never fabricate safety conclusions
6. Address privacy: Do not proactively expose address holder identities — only display publicly available on-chain data