Token Check
by Base Token Risk Check in Onchain & crypto
Pay-per-call token risk check for Base: send a Base ERC-20 contract address, get deterministic JSON risk flags (owner/renounced, upgradeable proxy, mint/pause/blacklist/fee functions, on-chain Uniswap v2/v3 + Aerodrome liquidity, holder concentration) and a rule-based risk_level. Use before buying or listing an unfamiliar Base token. $0.01 USDC. Invalid input returns 400 and is not charged. Not financial advice.
https://api.x402risk.com/v1/token-check- Price
- $0.01
- per call in USDC
- Uptime
- 54.8%
- last 30 days
- Response time
- 651 ms
- 1.0 s slowest 5%
- Last check
- Failed
- 26 h ago, next any minute now
Reliability
Latest check failed 26 h ago: Expected HTTP 402, got 530
Status and outage history · Atom feed · Watch with other listings
How to call it
POST https://api.x402risk.com/v1/token-check
Each call costs $0.01 in USDC on Base, paid with the request over x402.
Run a free test callOne unpaid request, the way an agent sends it. You see the payment challenge it gets back. Nothing is charged.
Example request
From the listing.
POST https://api.x402risk.com/v1/token-check
content-type: application/json
{
"token": "0x532f27101965dd16442E59d40670FaF5eBB142E4"
}Parameters
| Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
token | string | Yes | Base (chain 8453) ERC-20 token contract address |
Example response
The provider's example. We can't check it without paying.
Example response, 29 lines
{
"chain": "base",
"chain_id": 8453,
"contract": {
"is_contract": true,
"is_eip1967_proxy": false,
"owner_renounced": true
},
"disclaimer": "Informational on-chain data only. Not financial, investment, legal or tax advice. Heuristic flags can be wrong; do your own research.",
"flags": [],
"holders": {
"holders_count": 948126,
"top10_share_ex_pools_burn": 0.318,
"top1_share_ex_pools_burn": 0.1166
},
"liquidity": {
"best_estimate_usd": 2618438.83,
"onchain_approx_liquidity_usd": 1779451.93
},
"risk_level": "low",
"schema_version": "1.0",
"status": "ok",
"token": "0x532f27101965dd16442E59d40670FaF5eBB142E4",
"token_info": {
"decimals": 18,
"name": "Brett",
"symbol": "BRETT"
}
}Call it from code
The curl command shows the payment challenge. The JavaScript and Python versions pay and call, and never pay more than $0.01.
curl: see the payment challenge
# bash or zsh: see the payment challenge. Nothing is charged.
curl -sS -g -i -X POST 'https://api.x402risk.com/v1/token-check' \
-H 'content-type: application/json' \
--data-raw '{"token":"0x532f27101965dd16442E59d40670FaF5eBB142E4"}'
# x402 v2 sends the challenge base64-encoded in the PAYMENT-REQUIRED header (v1 sends it in the body).
# To read the header:
curl -sS -g -o /dev/null -D - -X POST 'https://api.x402risk.com/v1/token-check' \
-H 'content-type: application/json' \
--data-raw '{"token":"0x532f27101965dd16442E59d40670FaF5eBB142E4"}' \
| grep -i '^payment-required:' | cut -d' ' -f2 | tr -d '\r' | base64 --decodeJavaScript: pay and call
// npm i @x402/fetch @x402/evm viem
import { wrapFetchWithPayment, x402Client } from "@x402/fetch";
import { registerExactEvmScheme } from "@x402/evm/exact/client";
import { privateKeyToAccount } from "viem/accounts";
// Pays at most $0.01 per call.
const client = new x402Client().setSpendControls({ maxAmountPerPayment: "$0.01" });
registerExactEvmScheme(client, { signer: privateKeyToAccount(process.env.EVM_PRIVATE_KEY) });
const pay = wrapFetchWithPayment(fetch, client);
// Not sure it's safe to pay? ToolVet checks it first for $0.005. Pay for that from a separate
// client: this one is capped at $0.01 per payment. GET https://toolvet.app/api/v1/check?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.x402risk.com%2Fv1%2Ftoken-check&method=POST
const res = await pay("https://api.x402risk.com/v1/token-check", {
method: "POST",
headers: { "content-type": "application/json" },
body: JSON.stringify({
"token": "0x532f27101965dd16442E59d40670FaF5eBB142E4"
}),
});
console.log(res.status, await res.text());Python: pay and call
# pip install "x402[requests,evm]"
import os
from eth_account import Account
from x402 import x402ClientSync
from x402.http.clients import x402_requests
from x402.mechanisms.evm import EthAccountSigner
from x402.mechanisms.evm.exact.register import register_exact_evm_client
# Pays at most $0.01 per call.
client = x402ClientSync().set_spend_controls({"max_amount_per_payment": "$0.01"})
register_exact_evm_client(client, EthAccountSigner(Account.from_key(os.environ["EVM_PRIVATE_KEY"])))
with x402_requests(client) as session:
res = session.post(
"https://api.x402risk.com/v1/token-check",
json={
"token": "0x532f27101965dd16442E59d40670FaF5eBB142E4",
},
)
print(res.status_code, res.text)Security scan
No findings
We scan names, descriptions and tool definitions for hidden instructions and other prompt-injection patterns.
Recent checks
| When | Result | HTTP | Time | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 h ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 530 | 530 | 184 ms | - |
| 36 h ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 530 | 530 | 178 ms | - |
| 47 h ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 530 | 530 | 167 ms | - |
| 2 days ago | Passed | 402 | 694 ms | $0.01 |
| 3 days ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 530 | 530 | 186 ms | - |
Show 10 older checks
| 3 days ago | Passed | 402 | 651 ms | $0.01 |
| 3 days ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 530 | 530 | 251 ms | - |
| 4 days ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 530 | 530 | 168 ms | - |
| 4 days ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 530 | 530 | 161 ms | - |
| 4 days ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 502 | 502 | 2.4 s | - |
| 4 days ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 530 | 530 | 169 ms | - |
| 4 days ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 502 | 502 | 727 ms | - |
| 5 days ago | Expected HTTP 402, got 530 | 530 | 239 ms | - |
| 5 days ago | Passed | 402 | 557 ms | $0.01 |
| 5 days ago | Passed | 402 | 341 ms | $0.01 |