Agent Data API

wallet_balances

Everything an EVM wallet holds across Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism and Polygon in one call: native coin and every ERC-20 balance priced in USD, sorted by value, with per-chain and overall totals and the top 10 holdings. Spam and unpriced tokens are counted, not listed. Optional chains limits which networks are read. Costs $0.003 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": "wallet_balances"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chains`	No	Comma-separated subset of base, eth, arbitrum, optimism, polygon (default all)
`address`	Yes	EVM wallet address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses result ordering, per-chain and overall totals, a top-10 listing cap, and the handling of spam/unpriced tokens ('counted, not listed'). The x402 payment requirement and price are stated, though the payment mechanics and failure behavior for invalid or empty wallets are not described.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the payload shape, then the spam caveat, the parameter note, and the cost. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully characterizes the return payload (native plus ERC-20, USD pricing, sorting, totals, top 10), the token-filtering behavior, and the billing model. An agent can call this correctly and set expectations without further documentation.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description's note that optional chains 'limits which networks are read' largely restates the schema's 'Comma-separated subset ... default all' without adding format or edge-case meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: every native and ERC-20 balance across five named chains, priced in USD and sorted by value. The 'in one call' framing distinguishes it from the per-chain siblings (base_wallet_balances, eth_wallet_balances, etc.) without needing their schemas.

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 multi-chain aggregation role is clear from 'in one call' across five networks, and the $0.003 USDC cost gives an agent decision-relevant context against free per-chain alternatives. It never explicitly says when to prefer a single-chain sibling or when not to use this, so exclusions are left implicit.

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?