TradingCalc MCP: Options, Forex, Risk Stats, Prediction Markets, On-Chain & Crypto Futures

Wallet Flag Check

workflow.run_wallet_flag_check

Read-only

Checks a wallet address (Solana or any of 5 EVM chains) against independent flag databases: GoPlus (malicious-address categories, all chains), Webacy (address analysis + sanctions check, all chains), and ScamSniffer (public phishing/drainer blacklist, EVM chains only), and returns each source's own facts separately, never merged into one invented score. Edge cases: chain solana (default), ethereum, base, bsc, arbitrum or polygon; the address must fit the chain; ScamSniffer covers EVM chains only and is marked not applicable on Solana; a source that fails or has no key is reported as unavailable on its own and does not hide the others. No flag is not a clean bill of health. Not covered: wallets nobody has reported yet, transaction history, counterparty risk, and any legal or sanctions advice. Use when user asks "is this wallet address flagged?" or "is it safe to send to this address?". A clean result means "nothing found in these databases," not a certified-safe verdict. Returns: goplus (flags[], categoriesChecked), webacyGeneral (overallRisk, dprk/hack/ofacSanctioned, exchangeLabel), webacySanctions (status), scamSniffer (flagged; not applicable on Solana). Each source has an available flag: false + error if that source failed independently.

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": {
      "walletAddress": "<walletAddress>"
    },
    "name": "workflow.run_wallet_flag_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain of the wallet address. Default solana.
`walletAddress`	Yes	Wallet address (base58 for Solana, 0x... for EVM chains)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / chain

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Chain of the wallet address. Default solana.",
+  "enum": [
+    "solana",
+    "ethereum",
+    "base",
+    "bsc",
+    "arbitrum",
+    "polygon"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / walletAddress / description

Previous value: -"Solana wallet address (base58)"New value: +"Wallet address (base58 for Solana, 0x... for EVM chains)"

AddedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral depth: each source is reported independently and never merged into a composite score, a failing or unkeyed source degrades to 'unavailable' without hiding the others, and ScamSniffer is marked not applicable on Solana. It also warns 'No flag is not a clean bill of health,' which prevents the most likely misinterpretation of an empty result.

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?

Purpose and sources are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by edge cases, exclusions, triggers, and return shape in a logical order. The prose is dense and the return-value sentence is long, but nearly every clause carries operational information rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so field-by-field (goplus flags/categoriesChecked, webacyGeneral fields, webacySanctions status, scamSniffer), including the per-source `available` flag and error behavior. Combined with chain edge cases and explicit non-coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the enum and address format are already documented; the description nonetheless reinforces the chain list, the solana default, and adds the constraint that 'the address must fit the chain' plus per-chain source applicability. That is modest added meaning over the schema rather than restatement alone.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Checks a wallet address') and immediately scopes it by naming the three data sources (GoPlus, Webacy, ScamSniffer) and the 6 supported chains. An agent can distinguish this from token- or transaction-level risk tools without inspecting the schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger utterances ('is this wallet address flagged?', 'is it safe to send to this address?') and a clear negative scope list (unreported wallets, transaction history, counterparty risk, legal/sanctions advice). It does not name a sibling tool to prefer instead (e.g. run_token_risk_check for token contracts), so routing between similar tools still requires inference.

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

All TradingCalc MCP: Options, Forex, Risk Stats, Prediction Markets, On-Chain & Crypto Futures 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.