Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

crypto_wallet_forensics

Multi-hop wallet forensics for AI agents: traverse an address's ERC-20 counterparty graph across 1-3 hops and get the flow graph (nodes + edges), ranked counterparties (direction, tokens, activity) and detected patterns — flow concentration, circular flows, linked/clustered wallets and high-degree hubs (exchange/mixer/deployer) — plus a signed receipt. Trace where funds move and who is connected. EVM chains. Price: $0.15 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). Multi-hop wallet forensics: ERC-20 counterparty flow graph (1-3 hops), ranked counterparties, pattern detection (flow concentration, circular flows, linked wallets, high-degree hubs) + signed receipt. Input: wallet (+depth 1-3, chain).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase | ethereum | optimism | polygon | arbitrum | gnosis (default base)
depthNoGraph hops to traverse: 1, 2 or 3 (default 2)
walletYesEVM wallet address (0x + 40 hex) to investigate

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output (nodes+edges, ranked counterparties, patterns, signed receipt), payment ($0.15/x402 on Base), and scope (EVM, ERC-20). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or whether the tool mutates state (likely read-only).

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 description is somewhat redundant, repeating 'Multi-hop wallet forensics' and the list of outputs. It is adequately structured but could be more concise without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains return values in detail: flow graph, ranked counterparties, patterns, and signed receipt. It also covers supported chains and pricing. This is sufficient for a tool with three parameters, though an example would strengthen completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with parameters already documented. The description repeats the parameter meanings (depth 1-3, chain default base, wallet format) but adds no significant extra meaning beyond the schema, warranting baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: multi-hop wallet forensics for ERC-20 counterparty graph, ranked counterparties, pattern detection, and signed receipt. It specifies EVM chains and payment, and the name is descriptive. It distinguishes from siblings like crypto_wallet_xray by focusing on flow graphs and patterns.

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?

The description implies usage for tracing fund movements and detecting patterns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

All x402-endpoints toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, there are clusters of similar tools (e.g., multiple token safety and pre-trade verdict tools for different chains) that could cause confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case with descriptive prefixes (e.g., agent_, crypto_, x402_). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count2/5

52 tools is excessive for a single server, covering a wide range of unrelated domains (crypto, legal, climate, transport, etc.). This overwhelms an agent and suggests a lack of focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain; it offers one-off tools across many areas but misses fundamental operations for any specific domain (e.g., no company registry for US, no order placement for crypto). Significant gaps exist.

Resources