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} |

### 7. Overall Assessment

{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

### ⚠️ Risk Warnings

{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)

> The above analysis is based on automated on-chain data detection and cannot cover all risk scenarios. Please combine with project due diligence and community research for comprehensive judgment.

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

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