Skip to main content
Glama

cabal-hunter

by com.cabal-hunter.api

check_wallet_in_token

Is a SPECIFIC wallet involved in a SPECIFIC Solana token? Use this when a user names a wallet they are worried about, or when your agent keeps its own watchlist of addresses and wants to screen a token against one.

Answers from two sources at once:

  1. the traced holders of that token — rank, % of supply, buy slot, whether it funded a coordinated cluster, whether it created the token, or whether it is the liquidity pool / a labelled exchange wallet

  2. a LIVE on-chain holding lookup, so a wallet too small to appear in the trace is still resolved rather than dismissed

HOW TO READ THE RESULT — this matters more than the fields: found_in_scan=false is NOT a clean bill of health. The trace covers the largest holders, so a smaller position sits outside it, and a wallet that sold out and closed its token account leaves nothing to observe. Never tell a user a wallet is 'clean' or 'not involved' on this result. The note field states the limit of what was actually checked; relay it.

holding.sold_out=true is the strong signal: a token account exists holding none of the token, i.e. this wallet HELD it and has since sold out.

track_record, when present, counts earlier tokens the wallet was early in and how many graduated. It is an association measured out-of-sample, NOT a profit signal and not a recommendation to copy or avoid anyone. Absence of a track record means we hold no record, not that the wallet has no history.

Free, no API key, rate limited per caller. For screening MANY wallets on every scan automatically, the Screen List add-on stores a private list per key: POST /api/screen-list/checkout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletYesThe wallet address to look for in that token (base58, 32–44 chars)
mintAddressYesThe Solana mint address of the token (base58, 32–44 chars)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the dual-source lookup, warns that found_in_scan=false is not a clean bill of health, interprets sold_out=true as the strong signal, and clarifies that track_record absence means no record rather than no history. This is unusually transparent.

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?

The description is long but every section earns its place: usage guidance, result caveats, signal interpretation, and access constraints are all critical because there is no output schema. It is front-loaded with the core question and uses structured bullets and bolded terms for readability.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the key result fields and their meanings: found_in_scan, note, holding.sold_out, and track_record. It also covers rate limits and the optional Screen List add-on, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret the response safely.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides for mintAddress and wallet. It does add context about what the wallet represents in the use case, but that is not necessary for parameter semantics.

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 leads with a clear, specific question: 'Is a SPECIFIC wallet involved in a SPECIFIC Solana token?' This identifies the verb, resource, and scope well. However, it never mentions the sibling tool check_cabal_risk or explains how this check differs from a broader cabal-risk check, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives explicit usage scenarios: use it when a user names a worried wallet or when an agent wants to screen token addresses against a watchlist. There are no explicit exclusion criteria or direct comparison to check_cabal_risk, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable.

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

All cabal-hunter toolsInspect
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: check_cabal_risk evaluates token-level risk, while check_wallet_in_token determines whether a specific wallet is involved in a specific token. Even though both reference holder data, the inputs and intended use cases are unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Both tools use a lower_snake 'check_' prefix and are readable, but the patterns diverge slightly: 'check_cabal_risk' is a simple noun-object construction while 'check_wallet_in_token' is prepositional. The naming is otherwise consistent and easy to predict.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is on the borderline for a coherent tool surface. Each tool is substantial and earns its place, but the server would feel more complete with at least one or two additional helpers for watchlist or monitoring workflows.

Completeness3/5

The pair covers the core token-risk and wallet-involvement checks, but the descriptions repeatedly point to API endpoints for watch management and screen lists that are not exposed as MCP tools. This leaves a meaningful gap for post-buy monitoring and continuous alert workflows.

Resources