Probity Wallet Reputation

Get screening history

get_screening_history

Read-only

Returns the authenticated user's most recent screening runs across all addresses, newest first, each with the same detail as screen_address: score, band, confidence, sanctioned flag, and the top evidence signals. Returns up to limit runs (default 20), so raise limit to reach older runs. Costs zero credits. For the history of one specific address, use get_address_screening_history instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of results (1-100, default 20)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Recent screening runs, newest first, each with the same detail as screen_address

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the scope across all addresses, the default of 20 results, the limit parameter semantics, the zero-credit cost, and the exact output fields via 'same detail as screen_address.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states the core result and fields, second explains limit behavior, and third provides the alternative. The most important scope constraint is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description covers what an agent needs beyond them. It addresses scope, ordering, cost, defaults, field content, and when to chose a different tool, leaving no obvious selection or invocation gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and documents the limit range and default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that increasing the limit reaches older runs and that the default is 20, which clarifies how the agent should advise the user.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a concrete resource ('the authenticated user's most recent screening runs across all addresses'), and ordering ('newest first'). It also distinguishes itself from get_address_screening_history by addressing scope differences.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It clearly says when to use this tool: when you need a user-wide history across all addresses. It also names the sibling get_address_screening_history for the single-address case, and notes the zero-credit cost, giving an agent a concrete routing and cost decision.

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?