Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PnL Labs — Solana Trust & Risk Checks

by io.github.PnLlabs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Trace Wallet Funding Origin

check_wallet_forensics
Read-onlyIdempotent

Traces where a Solana wallet's funding came from and how old it is, using on-chain transfer history. Returns: origin classification (CEX_FUNDED, WALLET_FUNDED, UNKNOWN_ORIGIN, UNVERIFIABLE_ORIGIN, UNKNOWN), the funding transaction, wallet age, and a fresh_wallet flag.

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": "check_wallet_forensics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesSolana wallet address (base58, 32-44 chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Previous value: -"Solana wallet address (base58)"New value: +"Solana wallet address (base58, 32-44 chars)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description is free to add analytical context: it discloses the source of the analysis (on-chain transfer history), the classification taxonomy returned, and that a fresh_wallet flag exists. It omits latency, rate limits, and what UNVERIFIABLE_ORIGIN vs UNKNOWN_ORIGIN practically mean for the caller.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: purpose first, returns second. Nothing is repeated from the name/title, and no filler. The returns enumeration is load-bearing because no output schema exists.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only query with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and enumerates the returned fields. The only real gap is the absence of any guidance on how this differs from check_wallet_trust in a wallet-checking workflow.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents format (base58, 32-44 chars). The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or validation nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (traces), resource (wallet funding origin), and method (on-chain transfer history), and the title reinforces it with 'Trace Wallet Funding Origin'. It is functionally distinguishable from check_wallet_trust or check_token_safety by its funding-origin/age focus, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent deciding between this and check_wallet_trust for a wallet risk question gets no routing signal.

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

All PnL Labs — Solana Trust & Risk Checks 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