Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

On-chain Forensics

by dev.onchainforensics
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Wallet trust screen

wallet_screen
Read-onlyIdempotent

$0.05. Wallet trust screen for any wallet on Base, Ethereum or XRPL (chain=xrp): balance, tx count, flows, top counterparties, contract-interaction risk, trust tier. For XRPL also trustlines and issuer screens.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "wallet_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain to read: base (default), ethereum, or xrp. With xrp, pass an XRPL issuer in address and the issued currency in currency.
addressYesThe wallet to screen: an EVM 0x... address, or an XRPL r... account when chain is xrp.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the $0.05 cost and the exact analysis dimensions returned, plus extra XRPL modes. It omits latency, failure behavior, and pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two compact sentences that front-load cost and then purpose, with the XRPL variant trailing where it belongs. Every clause carries information; the parenthetical '(chain=xrp)' is the only mildly redundant token.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by listing the six result categories plus the XRPL extras. For a two-parameter read-only screen that is nearly sufficient; only error/edge behavior is unaddressed.

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%, so the enum and address patterns are fully documented in the schema; the '(chain=xrp)' marker and the XRPL trustline/issuer note largely restate the schema's own chain description. It adds only light reinforcement, not new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (wallet trust screen) and enumerates exactly what the screen produces: balance, tx count, flows, top counterparties, contract-interaction risk, trust tier. The wallet-vs-token scope implicitly separates it from token_profile/token_verdict, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Says it works 'for any wallet on Base, Ethereum or XRPL (chain=xrp)', which gives usable scope, but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never contrasts itself with the listed alternatives. Usage is implied by chain coverage rather than stated as a decision rule.

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

All On-chain Forensics toolsInspect
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