What matters most
Top-holder concentration, incomplete wallet-flow context, and uncertain pool coverage are the first things to verify manually.
Live-style sample report
$ASNEM sample scan.
A public example of how a Rug Rat Radar report is structured: score context, risk checklist, pool coverage, wallet signals, creator history, and manual verification steps.
Important boundary
This is an educational sample, not a live price call. Rug Rat Radar does not provide financial advice, buy/sell calls, swaps, signing, custody, or wallet validation.
Report card
$ASNEM Rug Rat Score: 57/100
Caution — multiple warnings deserve manual review. The score is a risk shortcut, not a prediction and not a trading instruction.
Plain-English read
$ASNEM shows enough activity to inspect, but the report is telling you to slow down and verify evidence before trusting the story.
Risk checklist
Check holder concentration, liquidity depth/lock proof, official links, wallet clusters, route quality, and creator history.
Why the score moved
Score drivers are research signals, not buy/sell instructions. Missing provider data increases uncertainty instead of making a token safer.
Scanner sections
What a live Rug Rat Radar report asks you to verify.
Pool coverage
Visible liquidity estimate across indexed pools; not promised to include every pool. Review main pool depth, largest-pool share, Meteora TVL, and Jupiter buy/sell route status.
Big-wallet selling
Read-only wallet-flow analysis checks whether large holders appear to be moving supply. It does not connect to your wallet.
Real vs padded wallets
Compare real/non-dust holders against dust or tiny wallet padding so holder count does not create false comfort.
Dust / padded holders
Dust wallets can make holder numbers look healthier than actual distribution. Treat this as a distribution-quality check.
Creator history
Creator and deployer context can reveal patterns, but provider data can be incomplete and must be manually verified.
GMGN wallet/risk
GMGN-style holder tags, fresh-wallet clusters, and smart/KOL wallet context are extra research clues, not proof by themselves.
Manual verification
Five checks before trusting any token story.
1. Verify the exact mint
Official X/site/Telegram should show the same contract/mint address, not just the same name or logo.
2. Check top holders
Review bundled wallets, concentration, dust padding, and whether control sits with a few wallets.
3. Review wallet movement
Look at big-wallet selling, fresh wallets, and coordinated early-wallet behavior as read-only research signals.
4. Confirm liquidity/route quality
Check lock/depth, pool concentration, sell route availability, and whether provider data is fresh.
5. Treat gaps as uncertainty
Provider gaps, missing socials, or unavailable wallet-flow context are uncertainty — never proof of safety.