Kellian

Counterparty trading track record + reputation for a wallet

kellian_get_trader_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Public reputation tiers and trading track record for a wallet: profit or loss by collateral, win/loss, win rate, markets traded and member-since. Method, period and completeness remain explicit. Or a listed trader's lists and 3-month record by traderReference.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "kellian_get_trader_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	No	Wallet address.
`traderReference`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds that the reputation data is public, that methodology/period/completeness remain explicit, and that traderReference mode returns a 3-month record. It does not add auth, rate-limit, or output-detail context beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loads the primary wallet-profile purpose. However, the sentence 'Method, period and completeness remain explicit' is vague, and the final sentence beginning with 'Or' is structurally awkward and slightly disorienting.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has an output schema and annotations, so return-value and safety details are largely covered elsewhere. The description is still incomplete for invocation because it does not explicitly state that exactly one of address or traderReference should be provided, nor does it route the agent away from similar reputation tools. Those gaps matter given two optional parameters and many sibling tools.

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 coverage is 50%; address has a basic description while traderReference has only a pattern. The description adds meaning by calling traderReference a lookup for a listed trader and stating it returns lists and a 3-month record. It fails to clarify that the two parameters are alternative lookup modes and that at least one should be supplied, especially since neither is marked required.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the resource and data returned: public reputation tiers and trading track record for a wallet, including profit/loss, win/loss, win rate, markets traded, and member-since. It also distinguishes a second lookup mode via traderReference. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling reputation tools such as kellian_get_counterparty_reputation or kellian_get_subject_reputation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: use address for a wallet profile or traderReference for a listed trader's lists and 3-month record. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings, whether one parameter is required, or any prerequisites. This is minimum viable guidance with clear gaps.

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

All Kellian tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?