Nansen

Finding related wallets

address_related_addresses

Get information about related addresses of an input address.

Note: This only includes the the "special" connections 'First Funder', 'Signer', 'Previous Signer', 'Multisig Signer of', 'Previous Multisig Signer of', 'Deployed via', 'Deployed by', 'Deployed Contract', 'Created Contract', 'Created by'. To get related wallets, also check address counterparties. First funder exchange withdrawal address does usually NOT belong to the same entity as the address, only deposit addresses. Only information is that it has been funded by the exchange.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	AddressRelatedAddressesRequest containing parameters and pagination settings

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that only special connections are included, that the tool does not return all related addresses, and explains the exchange withdrawal nuance. This is substantial, honest context about the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core action. It includes necessary caveats and an alternative tool reference without excessive verbosity. Minor typos ('the the') and slightly awkward phrasing reduce the polish, but overall sentence structure is clear and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return format need not be explained), the description is highly complete. It explains the exact meaning of 'related addresses' via the connection list, covers edge cases (exchange withdrawal addresses), and directs to the appropriate alternative tool. This provides a full mental model for the user.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'request' object and its fields (address, chain). The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics, but the high schema coverage means the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description focuses on tool behavior rather than parameter syntax.

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 information about related addresses of an input address.' It further defines 'related' by listing specific special connections, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like address_counterparties and address_transactions. The first sentence is specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it directs the user to also check 'address counterparties' for related wallets, clarifies the limited scope of special connections, and warns about the exchange withdrawal address caveat. This tells the user when to use this tool versus alternatives and what to expect from results.

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?