Realtap

Wallet UTxO fragmentation

analyze_wallet_utxos

Read-onlyIdempotent

How fragmented a Cardano wallet's UTxOs are and what tidying them ("unfracking") would release: UTxO count, native assets and policies, ADA locked as minimum-UTxO deposits, UTxOs that hold a single asset, the largest UTxO, and the projected result of the default UTxO-optimiser plan (transactions needed, UTxOs afterwards, ADA released from deposits, network fees). Read-only: no transaction is built; the user reviews and signs in their own wallet on the page in url. Amounts are whole ADA. A wallet with more than 600 UTxOs answers status: "too_large".

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": "analyze_wallet_utxos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	addr1… payment address, stake1… stake address, or an ADA Handle written as $name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that no transaction is built, the user reviews and signs in their own wallet on the returned `url`, amounts are whole ADA, and wallets above 600 UTxOs return `status: "too_large"`. These are meaningful operational details that annotations alone would not provide.

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 front-loaded with the fragmentation/optimiser purpose, then moves efficiently through return fields, read-only workflow, ADA units, and the 600-UTxO limit. Every sentence adds useful information and there is 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the key response contents, projected optimiser results, units, and the `too_large` status. It also clarifies the read-only signing workflow, making the tool sufficiently complete to invoke and interpret.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single `address` parameter, including accepted address formats and ADA Handle syntax. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific analysis of a Cardano wallet's UTxO fragmentation and the projected effect of tidying them, with concrete outputs named. It is clearly distinct from sibling wallet tools such as get_wallet, get_wallet_activity, or transaction-building tools.

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 clearly establishes the context: use this to understand UTxO fragmentation and what an optimiser plan would release, without building a transaction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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

All Realtap 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?