SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Solana account inventory: SOL balance, every SPL token

crypto_solscan_account_tokens

Read-only

Solana account inventory: SOL balance, every SPL token account (Token and Token-2022 programs) with mint, amount, decimals and frozen state, token name, symbol, USD price and value for the largest holdings (Jupiter token data), and the latest transaction signatures with time and status. Read from Solana RPC. 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_solscan_account_tokens"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Token accounts to return, 1 to 100 (default 20; non-zero balances, largest USD value first)
`address`	Yes	Solana wallet address (base58, required)
`signatures`	No	Latest signatures to return, 0 to 50 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`tokens`	No
`address`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`signatures`	No
`solBalance`	No
`knownValueUsd`	No
`tokenAccounts`	No
`nonZeroTokenAccounts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes further by disclosing the data provenance (Solana RPC, Jupiter), the metered cost ($0.002 USDC per successful call, failures uncharged), and the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc). What it omits is rate limits, failure modes, or freshness/latency of the RPC reads.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries content — data fields, source, and billing. The payload enumeration is dense but earns its length; only the parenthetical '(Jupiter token data)' feels like optional detail.

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 three-parameter, paid, read-only aggregation tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, where it comes from, and what it costs. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing, and return-value detail is legitimately delegated to the output schema.

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 all three parameters already carry descriptions including ranges, defaults, and 'largest USD value first' ordering. The description adds only that pricing and value apply to the 'largest holdings', which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource ('Solana account inventory') and enumerates the exact payload: SOL balance, SPL token accounts across Token and Token-2022, mint/amount/decimals/frozen state, Jupiter pricing, and recent signatures. That is far more specific than any sibling wallet-balance tool and makes the Solana scope unmistakable.

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 by the inventory framing — call it on a base58 wallet address to inspect holdings — and the pricing paragraph tells the agent failed calls are free. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and no routing to plausible alternatives such as crypto_solana_token_extensions or a general portfolio tool.

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?