Agent Data API

base_wallet_profile

Who is this Base address? Wallet age (first transfer), first funder, contract or EOA, ETH balance and nonce, the latest transfers in and out (native, ERC-20, NFTs), top counterparties by count, and recent large transfers in USD (ETH, WETH, USDC, USDT), from Alchemy's transfer index; plus, from our launch history, tokens it deployed and how many lost their liquidity, and deployers it funded. Costs $0.01 USDC on Base via x402.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "base_wallet_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Wallet or contract address on Base

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: the data provenance (Alchemy's transfer index plus "our launch history"), the chain (Base), and the charged cost of $0.01 USDC via x402 — a material fact an agent must know before calling. It stops short of stating error behavior for unknown/unfunded addresses, freshness/latency of the index, or response shape.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the framing question and then lists contents in a sensible order before ending with the price tag. It is a run-on with heavy list punctuation, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields, their sources, and the payment requirement. The remaining gap is alternative-tool routing and edge-case behavior for addresses with no history.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `address` parameter is already described as "Wallet or contract address on Base"; the description's mention of "Base address" adds nothing new. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the parameter work.

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?

Opens with a specific question-form verb and resource ("Who is this Base address?") and then enumerates exactly what the profile contains: wallet age, first funder, contract/EOA status, balance, nonce, transfers in/out, top counterparties, and USD-denominated large transfers. The enumerated contents clearly separate it from base_wallet_balances (balances only) and base_transaction_summary, even without naming them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for profiling an address, so an agent can infer it belongs after a lookup or when a full identity picture is needed. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer base_wallet_balances, base_transaction_summary, or the eth_/optimism_/polygon_ wallet_profile siblings, and no stated preconditions.

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

All Agent Data API 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?