SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Ethereum wallet profile from Blockscout: ETH balance

agent_intel_wallet_forensic_profiler

Read-only

Ethereum wallet profile from Blockscout: ETH balance, contract or EOA, ENS name, Blockscout scam flag and reputation, public tags, and activity over its most recent 50 transactions. NOT included: OFAC sanctions screening (the SDN list is 78 MB, too large per request), mixer (Tornado Cash) checks, and full wallet age. Related tools on this server, for a different need: agent_intel_wallet_pnl_performance_audit when you need estimated current value of the token amounts a wallet. Price: $0.003 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": "agent_intel_wallet_forensic_profiler"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Ethereum wallet or contract address 0x... (40 hex characters)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`source`	No
`address`	No
`ensName`	No
`riskTier`	No
`scamFlag`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`balanceEth`	No
`isContract`	No
`notChecked`	No
`publicTags`	No
`reputation`	No
`recentActivity`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's main added value is commercial and scoping behavior: cost ($0.003 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), that failed calls are not charged, and that activity is capped at the most recent 50 transactions. It does not disclose latency, rate limits, or data freshness, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content is front-loaded with the payload fields, which is good, but the sibling-routing sentence is grammatically broken ('when you need estimated current value of the token amounts a wallet.') and the pricing/payment sentence is dense with parenthetical detail. Every clause is relevant, but the execution is ragged rather than crisp.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it instead covers scope limits (last 50 txs), explicit exclusions, cost and payment mechanics, and a sibling alternative — everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly. Nothing material is missing for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Ethereum wallet or contract address 0x... 40 hex characters'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the address parameter or its format, matching the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 names a specific verb+resource (profile an Ethereum wallet from Blockscout) and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: ETH balance, contract vs EOA, ENS name, scam flag/reputation, public tags, and activity across the last 50 transactions. That content list makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings such as agent_intel_wallet_pnl_performance_audit or agent_intel_ofac_sanctions_preflight.

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 explicit when-not conditions ('NOT included: OFAC sanctions screening... mixer checks... full wallet age') and redirects to a sibling for a different need (PnL audit). It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over siblings like holder_cluster_analyzer or sybil_airdrop_farmer_check, so routing is aided but not fully specified.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?