Skip to main content
Glama

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

by io.github.SKalinin909
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain of the wallet address. Default solana.
walletAddressYesWallet address (base58 for Solana, 0x... for EVM chains)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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)"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: sources are never merged into one score, each source carries an `available` flag with independent error reporting, and ScamSniffer is inapplicable on Solana. This is precisely the kind of extra disclosure that earns credit over the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then use cases, caveat, and return shape. Dense but every line conveys actionable information (return fields stand in for the absent output schema). Slightly long, but nothing is 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 compensates by listing the return fields per source and the `available`/error semantics. Chain coverage and the Solana caveat are also addressed, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to `chain` by enumerating 'Solana or any of 5 EVM chains' and clarifying that ScamSniffer is EVM-only. It adds modest value beyond the schema's enum.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('checks a wallet address'), names the exact sources consulted, and scopes chain support ('Solana or any of 5 EVM chains'). It is clearly distinguishable from the adjacent token-oriented siblings like run_token_risk_check.

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 phrases ('is this wallet address flagged?', 'is it safe to send to this address?') and a caveat that a clean result is not a certified-safe verdict. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just below the top mark.

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 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