Nansen

by io.github.hurcanNansen

Summarizing prediction market address

prediction_market_address_summary

Prediction market summary metrics for a Polygon wallet.

When to use:

First wallet-level Polymarket tool for a quick trader overview.
Use before detailed address trades/PnL when the user asks for a general wallet profile, activity summary, or whether a wallet is active on Polymarket.

Key fields:

Aggregate volume, trade/market counts, win rate, ROI, and PnL where the API provides them.
Blank PnL or ROI fields mean unavailable data, not zero.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that blank PnL/ROI fields mean 'unavailable data, not zero', which is an important semantic. It also lists the key aggregate metrics, adding context about what the summary contains. It does not explicitly state the read-only nature, but that is strongly implied by 'summary metrics'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with bullet sections, front-loaded purpose, and no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, when to use, and key field semantics. It is appropriately sized for a summary tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the wallet scope, key fields, and data-availability semantics. It could additionally mention pagination or address format, but the about output schema and sibling context make the current level adequate.

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?

The description mentions 'Polygon wallet' and wallet-level metrics, which hints that the 'request' parameter should contain an address, but it does not explain the request object structure or the 'page' parameter. Schema coverage is 0% for the top-level parameter, so the description only partially compensates. The internal address description in the schema provides some meaning, but the description itself adds limited parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('summary metrics') and identifies the resource ('a Polygon wallet'). It clearly distinguishes this tool as the wallet-level overview from siblings like prediction_market_address_pnl and prediction_market_address_trades by calling it the 'first wallet-level Polymarket tool' for a 'quick trader overview'.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states when to use the tool ('first wallet-level... quick trader overview') and that it should precede 'detailed address trades/PnL'. It does not name alternative tool IDs, but the guidance is clear enough about usage context and exclusions.

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?