Crypto Due Diligence

Find a wallet's public name

wallet_identity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks whether a wallet address has a public name, such as a token deployer or a known trader's wallet. Pass address (0x or Solana). Returns the ENS primary name when it resolves back to the address, and the Farcaster account that verified the address, both self-declared by the owner. It cannot search by a person's name and never links a wallet to a private person.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	A wallet address: 0x... on an EVM chain, or a Solana address.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ens`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`as_of`	Yes	ISO 8601 time the data was published by its source or fetched from it. A cached answer keeps the time of its fetch.
`family`	Yes
`notice`	Yes
`source`	Yes	Who the data comes from, to cite and to check it against.
`status`	Yes
`address`	Yes
`farcaster`	Yes
`incomplete`	Yes
`identity_found`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / as_of / description

Added value: +"ISO 8601 time the data was published by its source or fetched from it. A cached answer keeps the time of its fetch."

addedOutput schema / properties / source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Who the data comes from, to cite and to check it against.",
+  "properties": {
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "address",
-  "family",
-  "identity_found",
-  "incomplete",
-  "ens",
-  "farcaster",
-  "note",
-  "as_of",
-  "notice"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "address",
+  "family",
+  "identity_found",
+  "incomplete",
+  "ens",
+  "farcaster",
+  "note",
+  "as_of",
+  "notice",
+  "source"
+]

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: results are self-declared by the owner, the ENS name must resolve back to the address, and it deliberately avoids linking wallets to private individuals. It does not discuss rate limits or ambiguity handling, but the added disclosure is substantial.

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 tight sentences: trigger first, input format second, output and negative constraints last. Every sentence carries distinct information 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description usefully previews the returns (ENS primary name, verifying Farcaster account) and clearly sets the boundary conditions of what this tool will and will not reveal. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents format. The description's 'Pass address (0x or Solana)' restates what the schema says without adding syntax or edge-case guidance; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find a wallet's public name') and frames it as a lookup of whether an address has an associated public name. The sibling tools (get_feedback_reply, screen_token, submit_feedback) are unrelated, and the scope is unambiguous within one sentence.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering user question ('asks whether a wallet address has a public name') plus concrete examples (token deployer, known trader's wallet), and names the exclusion: it cannot search by a person's name and never links a wallet to a private person.

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

All Crypto Due Diligence 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.