Probity Wallet Reputation

Get monitoring events

get_monitoring_events

Read-only

Returns the authenticated user's monitoring events: material reputation changes detected on their monitored addresses, oldest first, each with the change type, a summary, and the band transition. Also returns a deterministic digest that rolls up the window into one sentence. Page forward by passing the returned nextCursor as cursor. Bound the window with since and until, or restrict to one address with address. Costs zero credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of events (1-100, default 20)
`since`	No	ISO-8601 lower bound. Only events at or after this time are returned.
`until`	No	ISO-8601 upper bound. Only events at or before this time are returned.
`cursor`	No	Pass the nextCursor from a prior call to page forward.
`address`	No	Restrict to one monitored address (0x...). Omit for the whole portfolio.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`digest`	Yes	Deterministic rollup of the events in this window
`events`	Yes	Monitoring events in the window, oldest first
`hasMore`	Yes	True when more events remain past this page
`nextCursor`	Yes	Cursor for the next page, or null when none remain

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the description adds value beyond them by revealing ordering (oldest first), pagination behavior, presence of a deterministic digest, and zero-credit cost. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence earns its place: first the main behavior and result shape, then the digest feature, then pagination, filtering, and cost. The description is information-dense but not padded, and it front-loads the most important semantics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists and all five optional parameters are documented in the schema, the description provides exactly the contextual glue needed for correct invocation: pagination, cursor behavior, filtering windows, ordering, and credit cost. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter names and meanings are already well documented. The description does add helpful relational context, such as 'nextCursor as cursor' and 'since and until bound the window,' but it does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource ('the authenticated user's monitoring events') and the action ('Returns'), and specifies what each event contains: change type, summary, and band transition. This differentiates it from related sibling tools like get_screening_history, since the focus is explicitly on monitored address events and a rolled-up digest.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage instructions: page forward with cursor, bound the window with since and until, restrict with address, and notes zero credit cost. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name an alternative, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Probity Wallet Reputation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct role: screen_address is the only credit-costing action, while get_credit_balance, histories, narrative, compare, and monitoring are clearly read/reporting tools. The only minor ambiguity is between get_screening_history and get_address_screening_history, but the descriptions clearly separate all-address history from single-address history.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is get_<noun>_<detail>, and screen_address is a clear imperative action. compare_screening_runs breaks the get_* pattern but still uses a recognizable verb-first structure, so naming is mostly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a wallet reputation screening service: one core action, a balance check, two history views, a narrative fetcher, a comparison tool, and monitoring events. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant or peripheral.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core workflow: screen an address, retrieve narrative, review history, check credit, compare runs, and monitor events. A notable minor gap is the lack of a direct fetch for a single screening run by screeningId, though the history and compare tools partially work around this.

Resources

Need Help?