SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

On-chain wallet portfolio and performance from Zerion

crypto_zerion_dna_feed

Read-only

On-chain wallet portfolio and performance from Zerion across 40+ EVM chains and Solana: total value in USD, split by position type (wallet, deposited, borrowed, locked, staked) and by chain, 1-day change, lifetime PnL (realized, unrealized, total gain and %, invested, fees) and, with a period, the value history chart (up to 60 points). Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_crypto_liquidations_feed when you need OKX perpetual-swap liquidations for one underlying. 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_zerion_dna_feed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	No	Optional value chart: hour, day, week, month, 3months, 6months, year, 5years or max
`address`	Yes	EVM address 0x… or Solana address (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pnl`	No
`chart`	No
`byType`	No
`source`	No
`address`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`topChains`	No
`change1dUsd`	No
`totalValueUsd`	No
`change1dPercent`	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, but the description adds context they don't carry: a metered price of $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 (Base, Solana or Arc) and the fact that failed calls are not charged — material for an agent deciding whether to retry. It also discloses the chart cap (up to 60 points) and the cross-chain coverage (40+ EVM chains and Solana). Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and return contents before the sibling note and price. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on enumeration of PnL sub-fields and the unrelated liquidations sibling reference make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 two-parameter, read-only, open-world tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: accepted address formats, the optional period and its effect, cost and failure-charging behavior, and chain coverage. Return shape details are a bonus rather than a requirement given the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining the causal effect of 'period' — supplying it adds a value history chart capped at 60 points, rather than merely restating the enum of hour/day/week/month/etc. It also restates that address spans EVM 0x… and Solana, which is already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb-like resource (on-chain wallet portfolio and performance from Zerion) and enumerates the exact outputs: total USD value, position-type split (wallet, deposited, borrowed, locked, staked), per-chain split, 1-day change, and lifetime PnL components. An agent knows precisely what it gets. It loses a point because the most confusable sibling, crypto_debank_wallet_portfolio, is never mentioned, so the agent cannot tell from this text which portfolio tool to prefer.

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?

Usage context is explicit ('when you need' on-chain wallet portfolio/performance, with or without a period for history) and it routes away one alternative, crypto_crypto_liquidations_feed, by naming it as a different need. However, that routing target is essentially unrelated, while the genuinely competing sibling crypto_debank_wallet_portfolio receives no when-to-use/when-not treatment, leaving the real selection decision to inference.

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?