SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Estimated current value of the token amounts a wallet

agent_intel_wallet_pnl_performance_audit

Read-only

Estimated current value of the token amounts a wallet received minus sent in its most recent 50 ERC-20 transfers (Blockscout), priced at current DefiLlama prices. It is NOT profit and loss: there is no cost basis, no historical prices, no realised gains, win rate or Sharpe ratio, and transfers older than the latest 50 are missing. Related tools on this server, for a different need: agent_intel_wallet_forensic_profiler when you need Ethereum wallet profile from Blockscout: ETH balance; agent_intel_solana_authority_audit when you need Solana SPL token mint audit from the public Solana RPC: is. 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_pnl_performance_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`source`	No
`tokens`	No
`address`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`olderPagesExist`	No
`transfersScanned`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations it discloses the upstream data sources (Blockscout, DefiLlama), a hard data-truncation limit (only the most recent 50 transfers), and the pricing model: $0.003 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc with failed calls not charged. The cost/auth detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. Minor deduction for the garbled trailing sibling clause ('Solana SPL token mint audit from the public Solana RPC: is.'), which leaves a fragment rather than clean guidance.

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?

The core definition and the negative scoping are correctly front-loaded, but the trailing sibling-tool enumeration is long, unevenly punctuated and ends in a dangling fragment, which adds reading cost without adding routing value beyond the tool names.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, an agent needs the metric definition, its limits, the data sources, the cost model and the escape hatches to siblings — all present. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Ethereum wallet address 0x... (40 hex characters)'), so the schema already carries the full semantics. The description adds nothing about the address argument itself, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource+scope: net token value of the last 50 ERC-20 transfers for a wallet, priced at current DefiLlama prices. It immediately distinguishes itself from profit/loss and portfolio-value tools by explicitly ruling out cost basis, historical prices and realised gains.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the exact conditions under which this tool is the wrong choice ('It is NOT profit and loss') and routes the agent to two named alternatives with their own preconditions (agent_intel_wallet_forensic_profiler for ETH balance profiles, agent_intel_solana_authority_audit for Solana SPL mints). This is explicit when/when-not plus alternatives.

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?