Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

One wallet, many collections

chain_wallet_nfts

Read-onlyIdempotent

ERC-721 balanceOf for one address across up to 10 collections with each collection's name and symbol resolved once — the 'what NFTs does this wallet actually hold' check without an indexer. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Chains: base, ethereum, arbitrum, bsc, polygon, optimism, avalanche. Byte-identical to GET /chain/wallet-nfts?chain=base&owner=0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913&tokens=0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913,0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes	chain key: base, ethereum, arbitrum, bsc, polygon, optimism, avalanche [required]
`owner`	Yes	holder address [required]
`tokens`	Yes	up to 10 ERC-721 contract addresses [required]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ts`	No
`note`	No
`rows`	No
`chain`	No
`owner`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`chainId`	No
`requested`	No
`totalHeld`	No
`chainLabel`	No
`collectionsWithHoldings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "chain": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "chainId": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "chainLabel": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "collectionsWithHoldings": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "owner": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "requested": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "rows": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "totalHeld": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds meaningful extra behavior: the $0.001 USDC cost, the supported chain list, the once-per-collection name/symbol resolution, and byte-identical equivalence to a GET endpoint. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 somewhat long but each segment earns its place: purpose, cost, chains, and endpoint equivalence. The embedded example URL is heavy but serves as a concrete parameter illustration rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required. The description covers cost, supported chains, endpoint equivalence, and the key behavioral constraint, leaving no critical decision-making context missing for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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 met. The description adds value by clarifying that tokens are ERC-721 contract addresses, reinforcing the 10-collection cap, and providing a concrete URL example showing comma-separated token addresses for the tokens string.

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 names a specific operation (ERC-721 balanceOf) over a precise resource (one address across up to 10 collections) and states the use case: 'what NFTs does this wallet actually hold'. It also distinguishes itself from single-collection NFT balance tools by emphasizing multi-collection scope and name/symbol resolution.

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 phrase 'without an indexer' and the wallet-holdings use case give a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use it, leaving some comparison to inference.

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

All Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid) 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?