Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

VerifyLite

by io.github.SecondShotAI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Wallet transfer history on Base: recent token transfers in and out, newest first

wallet_transfers
Read-only

Recent token transfers for one Base wallet, incoming and outgoing, newest first: token, symbol, amount, sender, recipient, transaction hash, block and time, with likely spam airdrops flagged. Filter by one token or by direction, up to 50 per call. Reports the block window searched. Useful for checking a counterparty's activity, confirming deposits, reconciling payments, or watching an agent's wallet. Read-only. Not charged for invalid input or when Base can't be reached. Paid via x402; see list_prices.

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": "wallet_transfers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many transfers, 1 to 50 (default 20).
tokenNoOptional: only this token contract (0x address).
addressYesWallet 0x address on Base.
directionNoOptional: "in", "out" or "all" (default).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses spam-airdrop flagging, the 'up to 50 per call' cap, that a block window is reported, and pricing behavior ('paid via x402', 'not charged for invalid input or when Base can't be reached'). Those cost and safety details are exactly the context annotations do not carry.

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 scope and ordering come first, followed by return fields, filters, behavioral caveats and pricing. Information is front-loaded and every clause carries distinct value; nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (token, symbol, amount, sender, recipient, tx hash, block, time, spam flag) and the block window. Combined with the pricing notes and parameter filters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description marginally adds that filtering is by 'one token or by direction' and repeats the 50 cap, but does not add syntax or combination rules beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Recent token transfers for one Base wallet, incoming and outgoing, newest first') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from chain_tx, chain_token and token_holders at a glance. It also names the chain (Base) and the direction scope, which matters for sibling selection.

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 gives concrete usage contexts ('checking a counterparty's activity, confirming deposits, reconciling payments, or watching an agent's wallet'), which is stronger than implied usage. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stays short of a 5.

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

All VerifyLite 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