| Ecosystem |
| 1 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 9 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates dynamic trust scores for cryptocurrency tokens by analyzing on-chain and off-chain signals in real-time. Implements a multi-factor scoring algorithm that weights structural indicators (contract age, holder distribution, liquidity depth) and behavioral signals (transaction patterns, whale movements) to produce a single trust metric. Scores update continuously as new blockchain data becomes available, enabling detection of trust degradation before market collapse.
Unique: Combines on-chain structural analysis (contract bytecode patterns, holder concentration metrics) with behavioral signal detection (transaction velocity anomalies, liquidity withdrawal patterns) using a Bayesian updating framework that recalibrates trust scores as new data arrives, rather than static snapshot scoring
vs alternatives: Outperforms static token audit reports by detecting trust degradation in real-time through continuous signal monitoring, and provides explainable component scores (not a black-box risk rating) that developers can integrate into automated trading or portfolio management systems
Identifies and categorizes structural vulnerabilities in token contracts and ecosystems through pattern matching against known risk archetypes. Analyzes contract code patterns (reentrancy vectors, access control flaws, upgrade mechanisms), token economics (inflationary supply schedules, concentration in team wallets), and ecosystem health (validator/node centralization, bridge security). Returns categorized risk signals with severity levels and remediation guidance.
Unique: Uses multi-layer pattern matching combining bytecode-level analysis (via EVM opcode inspection), semantic contract analysis (via AST parsing of verified source), and ecosystem topology analysis (via on-chain relationship graphs) to detect risks that single-layer approaches miss, such as cross-contract reentrancy or cascading liquidity risks
vs alternatives: Provides explainable, categorized risk signals with severity levels and remediation guidance (not just a pass/fail audit), enabling developers to build nuanced risk policies that distinguish between critical code vulnerabilities and manageable economic risks
Forecasts potential token market collapses and distress events by analyzing leading indicators including liquidity withdrawal patterns, holder concentration changes, price volatility spikes, and on-chain transaction anomalies. Uses time-series analysis and anomaly detection to identify when a token's behavior deviates from its historical baseline, signaling impending market stress. Produces probabilistic predictions with confidence intervals and lead time estimates.
Unique: Combines time-series anomaly detection (isolation forests on normalized on-chain metrics) with causal inference (identifying which signal changes precede distress events) and ensemble forecasting (aggregating predictions from multiple models trained on different market regimes) to produce calibrated probability estimates rather than binary warnings
vs alternatives: Provides lead time estimates and confidence intervals (not just binary alerts), enabling developers to implement graduated response strategies; also explains which specific signals triggered the prediction, supporting human-in-the-loop decision making
Enables side-by-side comparison of multiple cryptocurrency tokens across security, compliance, economic, and ecosystem dimensions. Normalizes heterogeneous metrics (contract age, audit status, regulatory jurisdiction, liquidity depth, holder distribution, validator decentralization) into a unified comparison matrix. Supports custom weighting of dimensions to reflect user priorities, producing ranked asset lists and visual comparison profiles.
Unique: Implements dimension-aware normalization that preserves metric semantics (e.g., older contract age is safer, higher holder concentration is riskier) and supports custom weighting via a declarative configuration model, enabling users to encode their risk preferences without modifying code
vs alternatives: Provides normalized, multi-dimensional comparison with explainable component scores (unlike opaque rating systems), and supports custom weighting to reflect user priorities, making it suitable for both manual due diligence and automated portfolio construction algorithms
Evaluates cryptocurrency tokens against regulatory frameworks and compliance standards by analyzing token characteristics (jurisdiction of origin, regulatory status, KYC/AML requirements, securities law implications) and ecosystem governance (DAO structure, upgrade mechanisms, regulatory engagement). Produces compliance risk profiles indicating exposure to regulatory action, delisting risk, or legal challenges. Integrates with regulatory databases and legal precedent repositories.
Unique: Combines token characteristic analysis (via contract inspection and metadata) with jurisdiction-specific regulatory framework matching (via regulatory database queries) and legal precedent analysis (via case law repositories) to produce jurisdiction-aware compliance assessments rather than generic regulatory ratings
vs alternatives: Provides jurisdiction-specific compliance assessments (not one-size-fits-all ratings) and explains regulatory risks with reference to specific legal frameworks and precedents, enabling institutional investors to make informed decisions about regulatory exposure
Analyzes the distribution of token ownership across addresses to identify concentration risks and whale exposure. Calculates metrics including Gini coefficient (wealth inequality), Herfindahl index (market concentration), and holder tier distribution (top 1%, top 10%, etc.). Detects suspicious patterns such as sudden concentration changes, large transfers to exchange wallets, or coordinated holder movements. Provides early signals of potential rug pulls or coordinated dumps.
Unique: Combines statistical concentration metrics (Gini, Herfindahl) with behavioral anomaly detection (sudden concentration spikes, coordinated transfers) and exchange wallet tracking to identify both static concentration risk and dynamic signals of impending whale activity
vs alternatives: Provides both concentration metrics and behavioral anomaly detection (not just static snapshots), enabling detection of emerging rug pull risk before it materializes; also explains which specific holders are driving concentration changes
Evaluates token liquidity across DEX and CEX venues by analyzing order book depth, liquidity pool reserves, and historical slippage patterns. Calculates metrics including effective spread, impact of large trades, and liquidity stability over time. Identifies liquidity fragmentation across venues and detects sudden liquidity withdrawals. Provides slippage estimates for trades of various sizes and flags venues with insufficient depth.
Unique: Aggregates liquidity data across multiple DEX and CEX venues, normalizes for different pool architectures (constant product, concentrated liquidity, stable swap), and uses historical slippage patterns to produce venue-specific and trade-size-specific slippage estimates
vs alternatives: Provides multi-venue liquidity aggregation and trade-size-specific slippage estimates (not just current spot prices), enabling traders to plan large trades with accurate execution cost expectations and identify optimal venues
Monitors and reports on the audit and verification status of token contracts, including formal verification, security audits by reputable firms, bug bounty program participation, and code review coverage. Tracks audit history, identifies gaps in coverage, and flags tokens with unaudited or partially audited contracts. Integrates with audit databases and verification service APIs to provide current status.
Unique: Aggregates audit information from multiple sources (audit firms, verification services, bug bounty platforms) and tracks audit history including updates and re-audits, providing a comprehensive audit timeline rather than just current status
vs alternatives: Provides audit history and coverage details (not just binary audited/unaudited status), enabling investors to assess whether audits are current and comprehensive relative to contract complexity
Executes SQL queries against Supabase PostgreSQL instances through the Model Context Protocol, translating natural language or structured query requests into parameterized SQL statements. Uses MCP's tool-calling interface to expose database operations as callable functions with schema validation, enabling LLM agents to perform CRUD operations, joins, and aggregations with automatic connection pooling and credential management through Supabase client SDK.
Unique: Exposes Supabase PostgreSQL as MCP tools with automatic credential injection from Supabase client SDK, eliminating manual connection string management and enabling seamless LLM-to-database queries within Claude or compatible agents
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than generic SQL MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in authentication and connection pooling rather than requiring separate database credential configuration
Exposes Supabase Auth session state and user metadata through MCP tools, allowing agents to inspect current authentication context, retrieve user profiles, and trigger auth-related operations. Integrates with Supabase's JWT-based auth system to validate sessions and access user claims without re-authenticating, using the Supabase client's built-in session management.
Unique: Integrates Supabase's JWT-based auth system directly into MCP tool interface, allowing agents to inspect and act on auth state without managing separate credential stores or re-authentication flows
vs alternatives: More seamless than generic auth MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in session management and avoids redundant credential passing between agent and auth system
Invokes Supabase Edge Functions (serverless TypeScript/JavaScript functions) through MCP tools, passing parameters and receiving results with optional streaming support. Uses Supabase's edge function HTTP API to trigger functions with automatic authentication headers and response parsing, enabling agents to execute custom business logic without embedding it in the agent itself.
Zarq scores higher at 45/100 vs Supabase at 42/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Edge Functions as MCP tools with automatic authentication and response parsing, allowing agents to invoke custom serverless logic without managing HTTP clients or credential injection
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic HTTP MCP tools because it handles Supabase-specific authentication, error handling, and response formatting automatically
Subscribes to real-time changes on Supabase tables through MCP's event streaming interface, using Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY mechanism to push INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE events to agents. Maintains persistent WebSocket connections and filters events by table and row-level policies, enabling agents to react to database changes without polling.
Unique: Bridges Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY real-time system with MCP's tool interface, enabling agents to subscribe to database changes without managing WebSocket connections or event serialization
vs alternatives: More efficient than polling-based approaches because it uses Supabase's native real-time infrastructure rather than repeated database queries
Manages files in Supabase Storage buckets through MCP tools, supporting upload, download, list, and delete operations with automatic authentication and path-based access control. Uses Supabase's S3-compatible storage API with built-in support for public/private buckets and signed URLs for temporary access, enabling agents to handle file I/O without managing cloud storage credentials.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Storage's S3-compatible API as MCP tools with automatic authentication and signed URL generation, eliminating the need for agents to manage cloud storage credentials or generate temporary access tokens
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic S3 MCP tools because it leverages Supabase's built-in bucket policies and authentication rather than requiring separate AWS credentials
Performs semantic similarity searches on vector embeddings stored in Supabase PostgreSQL using pgvector extension, translating natural language queries into embedding vectors and executing cosine/L2 distance searches. Integrates with embedding providers (OpenAI, Cohere) or uses pre-computed embeddings, enabling agents to retrieve semantically similar documents or records without full-text search limitations.
Unique: Integrates pgvector directly into MCP tools with automatic embedding generation and distance calculation, enabling agents to perform semantic search without managing separate vector database infrastructure
vs alternatives: More efficient than external vector databases (Pinecone, Weaviate) for Supabase users because it colocates embeddings with relational data, reducing network latency and simplifying data synchronization
Exposes Supabase database schema information through MCP tools, allowing agents to discover table structures, column types, constraints, and relationships without manual schema documentation. Queries PostgreSQL information_schema and Supabase metadata tables to dynamically generate schema descriptions, enabling agents to construct valid queries and understand data relationships.
Unique: Queries Supabase's PostgreSQL information_schema directly through MCP tools, enabling agents to dynamically discover and adapt to database schemas without pre-configured schema definitions
vs alternatives: More flexible than static schema definitions because it reflects live database state, including recent migrations or schema changes
Enforces Supabase Row-Level Security policies within agent queries, ensuring that agents can only access rows permitted by RLS rules defined in the database. Evaluates policies based on authenticated user context (JWT claims, user ID) and applies WHERE clause filters automatically, preventing unauthorized data access at the database layer rather than application layer.
Unique: Delegates authorization enforcement to PostgreSQL RLS policies rather than implementing authorization in agent code, ensuring that data access rules are centralized and cannot be bypassed by agent logic
vs alternatives: More secure than application-level authorization because RLS is enforced at the database layer, preventing accidental data leaks even if agent code has bugs
+1 more capabilities