Nansen

Loading portfolio data

address_portfolio

Get comprehensive portfolio overview for a wallet address or entity.

Hyperliquid perpetual positions include liquidation prices to support risk analysis workflows.

For wallet addresses, supports different modes:

'fast-mode-default': Wallet balances + Hyperliquid positions (skip defi, for fast mode only)
'all': Wallet balances + DeFi positions + Hyperliquid positions
'wallet_balances': Only token balances (tokens and native coins across all chains)
'defi': Only DeFi positions (lending, staking, LP tokens, etc., excluding Hyperliquid)
'hyperliquid': Only Hyperliquid data — perp positions (with liquidation prices and margin summary) plus HL spot wallet balances

For entities (e.g., "Binance", "Paradigm Fund"), only on-chain token balances are returned, aggregated across all addresses associated with the entity.

This tool provides flexible portfolio analysis in a single request, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of their holdings.

The output is pre-formatted markdown that should be presented exactly as returned, preserving all tables, sections, and formatting without reinterpretation.

Example Usage: Get full comprehensive portfolio for a wallet: { "walletAddress": "0x28c6c06298d514db089934071355e5743bf21d60", "mode": "all" }

Get only DeFi positions (returns raw JSON):
```
{
    "walletAddress": "0x28c6c06298d514db089934071355e5743bf21d60",
    "mode": "defi"
}
```

Get only Hyperliquid positions (returns raw JSON):
```
{
    "walletAddress": "0x28c6c06298d514db089934071355e5743bf21d60",
    "mode": "hyperliquid"
}
```

Get token balances for an entity:
```
{
    "entity_id": "Binance"
}
```

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description discloses some behavioral traits: it mentions output is 'pre-formatted markdown' and that defi/hyperliquid modes 'return raw JSON'. This is contradictory and confusing, creating a behavioral transparency problem. It also does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide a consistent or complete behavioral picture.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening purpose, bullet-point modes, entity behavior, output format note, and example usage. It is somewhat longer than necessary but no excessive filler except the last 'This tool provides flexible portfolio analysis...' sentence. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description fails to explain the required 'request' wrapper in the schema, ignores the 'chain' parameter entirely, and does not state that exactly one of walletAddress or entity_id must be provided (despite the schema noting this). The internal contradiction about markdown vs JSON also leaves the behavior unclear. Given the tool's complexity and the lack of annotation support, the description is incomplete and would mislead an agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds meaning to modes and the walletAddress/entity_id distinction, but it omits the required 'request' wrapper parameter entirely. Examples show direct objects like {'walletAddress': '...'}, while the schema requires {'request': {...}}. It also uses inconsistent property names ('walletAddress' in the description vs 'wallet_address' in the schema's description), causing confusion. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but instead introduces critical inaccuracies.

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 purpose: 'Get comprehensive portfolio overview for a wallet address or entity.' It also specifies distinct modes (wallet_balances, defi, hyperliquid, etc.), which differentiates it from sibling tools by showing it can focus on specific portfolio aspects. The verb 'Get' and resource 'portfolio overview' are specific and actionable.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by explaining each mode and what it returns (e.g., 'fast-mode-default' with balances + Hyperliquid positions, 'defi' with only DeFi positions). It also distinguishes entity behavior ('only on-chain token balances'). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of a sibling or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Nansen tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly defined purpose, and overlapping tools (e.g., token_flows vs token_recent_flows_summary, nansen_score_top_tokens vs token_discovery_screener) include explicit guidance on when to use them. Even with similar names like prediction_market_trades and prediction_market_address_trades, the descriptions and parameters make the distinction unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a domain_prefix_noun pattern (address_, token_, prediction_market_), making them predictable within families. However, outliers like general_search, growth_chain_rank, hyperliquid_leaderboard, and transaction_lookup break the pattern, and some names are long or inconsistently formatted (e.g., smart_traders_and_funds_perp_trades vs smart_traders_and_funds_token_balances).

Tool Count3/5

With 38 tools, the server is far above the typical 3-15 range, making it heavy for agents to navigate. However, Nansen is a broad analytics platform covering wallets, tokens, prediction markets, and smart money activity, so the high count is justifiable as each tool serves a distinct function.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage across token analysis (ohlcv, trading, holders, flows, PnL, technicals), wallet analysis (portfolio, transactions, counterparties), prediction markets (lookup, orderbook, trades, PnL), and discovery. The only obvious omission is NFT support, but it is explicitly documented as out of scope, so no critical dead ends exist.

Resources

Need Help?