gate-info-riskcheck — Оценка безопасности смарт-контрактов и выявление рисков

--- 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) ```markdown ## {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 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