Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Iris

by io.github.0xVector0
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get an address's connections

get_connections
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every counterparty of an address that analyze_address analyzed in the last hour on this account (without an API key: for the x402 payer whose receipt is given): wallets it sent to or received from and the venues it swapped on, with labels, the native coin (SOL, ETH, BTC, TRX...) and stablecoins moved each way, the number of transactions, and the date and signature of its first and last transfer (for trace_transfer). Covers the transactions that analysis read only. For a token: the wallets in its groups (creator, bundlers, insiders, wallets handed supply) and its top holders. Free, from the earlier analysis; run analyze_address first.

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": "get_connections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoOptional: the chain it was analyzed on, for a 0x address analyzed on several EVM chains. The latest analysis otherwise.
limitNoHow many to list, largest by value first.
filterNoflagged: threats, sanctioned and mixer counterparties, and look-alike (address poisoning) ones; for a token, its creator, bundlers and insiders. exchange or mixer: only those.all
addressYesThe address analyze_address analyzed.
receiptNoOnly without an API key: the receipt analyze_address gave when it was paid with x402.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / chain / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "solana",
-  "ethereum",
-  "base",
-  "arbitrum",
-  "robinhood",
-  "bsc",
-  "bitcoin",
-  "tron",
-  "dydx",
-  "noble"
-]New value: +[
+  "solana",
+  "ethereum",
+  "base",
+  "arbitrum",
+  "robinhood",
+  "bsc",
+  "polygon",
+  "bitcoin",
+  "tron",
+  "dydx",
+  "noble"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the freshness window (last hour on this account), the data-completeness caveat ('Covers the transactions that analysis read only'), the zero-credit cost, and the auth alternative (receipt when no API key). These are exactly the operational traits annotations cannot express.

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?

Every clause carries information, but it is delivered as one sprawling sentence with stacked parentheses, so the reader must parse to find the primary purpose. Better front-loading (one short lead sentence, then the caveats) would cost nothing.

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 does the work of enumerating returned fields: labels, native coin, stablecoins moved each way, transaction count, first/last transfer date and signature. Prerequisite and cost are covered. The address-vs-token mode switch and the 'for trace_transfer' aside remain slightly ambiguous.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that `address` may be a token, in which case results become group wallets and top holders, and it ties `receipt` to the x402 payer flow. Chain/limit/filter semantics largely duplicate the schema.

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 concretely states the resource: every counterparty (wallets, venues, holders) of an address previously analyzed, with the specific data fields attached to each. It also names the boundary against siblings (analyze_address does the analysis; this reads its results). The single run-on sentence with nested parentheticals blurs the core statement, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Explicit prerequisite: 'Free, from the earlier analysis; run analyze_address first', which tells the agent both ordering and cost. The no-API-key path via an x402 receipt is also called out. It never states when to prefer find_token_insiders or trace_transfer for adjacent questions, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

All Iris 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