Skip to main content
Glama

Nansen

by io.github.nansen-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Finding related wallets

address_related_addresses
Read-only

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesAddressRelatedAddressesRequest containing parameters and pagination settings

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / request / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "description": "Complete request for address related addresses (flattened).",
-    "properties": {
-      "addresses": {
-        "description": "List of wallet addresses to analyze for related addresses",
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "chain": {
-        "default": "all",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "addresses"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "description": "Complete request for address related addresses (flattened).",
+    "properties": {
+      "address": {
+        "description": "Wallet address to analyze for related addresses",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "chain": {
+        "default": "all",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "address"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $defs
      Removed value: -{
-  "AddressRelatedAddressesRequest": {
-    "description": "Complete request for address related addresses (flattened).",
-    "properties": {
-      "addresses": {
-        "description": "List of wallet addresses to analyze for related addresses",
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "chain": {
-        "default": "all",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "addresses"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-}
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / request / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/AddressRelatedAddressesRequest"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "description": "Complete request for address related addresses (flattened).",
+    "properties": {
+      "addresses": {
+        "description": "List of wallet addresses to analyze for related addresses",
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "chain": {
+        "default": "all",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "addresses"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / request / description
      Added value: +"AddressRelatedAddressesRequest containing parameters and pagination settings"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by clarifying data scope (only special connection types) and the exchange funding nuance. This goes beyond structured fields, but it could still mention edge cases like unknown addresses or pagination behavior, which are not covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides relevant scope details and a caveat. The second paragraph listing connection types is a bit verbose but each item is meaningful; the exchange nuance is valuable. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and a key interpretation pitfall. It does not explain pagination or error handling, but those are likely in the output schema, and the annotations cover safety. Overall it gives enough context for a correct call.

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 input schema already documents the 'request' object and its fields ('address', 'chain'). The description adds no direct parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not harm selection but also does not compensate beyond schema.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Get information about related addresses') with a clear resource and input. It explicitly enumerates which connection types are included, and names the sibling tool 'address counterparties' as a complement, distinguishing this tool from that one. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'To get related wallets, also check address counterparties.' It also provides a crucial data-quality caveat about exchange withdrawal addresses, which helps an agent interpret results and decide when to trust the relationship. This is clear, actionable usage guidance.

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

All Nansen toolsInspect
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