SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Multi-chain wallet net worth with DeFi positions and debt

crypto_debank_wallet_portfolio

Read-only

Multi-chain wallet net worth with DeFi positions and debt (40+ EVM chains and Solana, data from the Zerion API): total value in USD split by wallet, deposited, borrowed, locked and staked, top chains, and every protocol position (protocol, chain, type such as deposit, loan, staked, reward or locked, token, amount and USD value) grouped by protocol, with total debt. Price: $0.002 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": "crypto_debank_wallet_portfolio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Protocol positions to return, 1 to 100 (default 50)
`address`	Yes	EVM address 0x… or Solana address (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`byType`	No
`source`	No
`address`	No
`debtUsd`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`positions`	No
`protocols`	No
`topChains`	No
`netWorthUsd`	No
`positionsTotal`	No
`change1dPercent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the paid x402 pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call on Base, Solana or Arc), states failed calls are not charged, names the upstream data source (Zerion API), and specifies the exact grouping/shape of the returned data. readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a pure portfolio read. The main omission is whether the underlying data is cached or real-time and whether responses can be truncated by the 100-position cap.

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?

A single long sentence with a parenthetical and an embedded list; it is information-dense but not front-loaded — pricing and payment rails are appended at the end where they are easy to miss. Every clause carries real content, yet readability suffers from the run-on structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, data source, scope of chains, exact return categories, and payment terms — enough for correct invocation. Remaining gaps are minor: no discussion of pagination/truncation behavior beyond the limit, and no error semantics for an unsupported or empty address.

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%, so both parameters (address, limit) are already fully documented in the schema, including the 1-100 range and default of 50. The description adds only adjacent meaning: that address may be an EVM 0x address or a Solana address (echoing the schema) and that positions are 'grouped by protocol', which hints at how the limit applies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 combination (multi-chain wallet net worth / portfolio) and enumerates the exact contents: total USD value split by wallet/deposited/borrowed/locked/staked, top chains, and per-protocol positions with token amounts and USD values. It also scopes the data source (40+ EVM chains and Solana via Zerion), which distinguishes it from single-chain balance tools like crypto_solscan_account_tokens or crypto_zapper_token_balances in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for a whole-wallet net-worth snapshot, and the required address parameter makes the entry condition obvious. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. zapper token balances for pure ERC-20 holdings), and no note that the address can be either an EVM 0x address or a Solana address as a selection constraint.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance 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.

Resources

Need Help?