Skip to main content
Glama

Abstraxn Agent Layer

by io.github.sandeep-antier

Wallet / token / ENS / tx-simulation lookups (pay-per-call)

web3.lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Multi-chain wallet, token, ENS, and transaction-simulation lookups, paid per call in USDC/USDm directly from the caller's own wallet via the x402 protocol — no Abstraxn account needed. Pick one action:

  • wallet_balances ($0.005): token balances for a wallet across 20+ chains. Requires chain and address.

  • wallet_transactions ($0.005): transaction history with asset transfers for a wallet. Requires address. Optional chain, limit.

  • wallet_pnl ($0.01): realized and unrealized profit/loss per token for a wallet. Requires chain and address.

  • token_metadata ($0.002): name/symbol/decimals for a token contract. Requires chain and address.

  • ens_resolve ($0.001): resolve an ENS name to an Ethereum address. Requires name.

  • ens_reverse ($0.001): resolve an Ethereum address to its ENS name. Requires address.

  • tx_simulate ($0.01): simulate an EVM transaction before sending — gas estimate, execution trace, revert reason. Requires network_id, from, to. Optional value, data, gas.

Prices above are indicative — the exact charge for a given call is always whatever the live payment challenge specifies for that request. The first call (no paymentPayload) returns paymentRequired; retry with the same arguments plus paymentPayload to complete payment and get the real result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNotx_simulate: recipient/contract address for the simulated transaction.
gasNotx_simulate: gas limit override. Optional.
dataNotx_simulate: hex-encoded calldata. Optional.
fromNotx_simulate: sender address for the simulated transaction.
nameNoens_resolve: ENS name to resolve, e.g. "vitalik.eth".
chainNowallet_balances / wallet_transactions / wallet_pnl / token_metadata: chain name, e.g. "ethereum", "base", "solana".
limitNowallet_transactions: max transactions to return, default 100.
valueNotx_simulate: transaction value in wei, as a string. Optional, default "0".
actionYesWhich web3 operation to perform.
addressNoAddress to look up — a wallet address for wallet_balances / wallet_transactions / wallet_pnl / ens_reverse, or a token contract address for token_metadata.
network_idNotx_simulate: EVM chain id as a string, e.g. "1" or "8453".
paymentPayloadNox402 payment payload from a previous `paymentRequired` challenge. Omit on the first call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
paymentRequiredNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses significant behavioral traits: the pay-per-call mechanism with indicative prices, the exact charge determined by the live payment challenge, and the two-step payment flow with `paymentPayload`. It also notes that no Abstraxn account is needed. These details are not deducible from annotations alone and add substantial transparency. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a clear overview sentence, a bulleted list of actions with prices and parameter requirements, and a concise note about the payment challenge flow. Every sentence provides useful information, and the format is easy to parse. Despite its length, it is not verbose or redundant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 actions, 12 parameters, payment protocol), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions, their costs, required and optional parameters, the payment handshake, and clarifies the no-account requirement. With an output schema present and high schema coverage, it doesn't need to explain return values. There are no significant gaps.

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?

The schema already has descriptions for all 12 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mapping which parameters are required or optional per action, and by providing examples like 'vitalik.eth' for ENS. This helps an agent select the correct parameters for a given action, which the schema alone does not do (the schema only requires `action`, not per-action prerequisites).

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Multi-chain wallet, token, ENS, and transaction-simulation lookups'. It then enumerates seven distinct actions, each with a precise verb phrase (e.g., 'wallet_balances: token balances for a wallet across 20+ chains'). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like market.crypto and network.token_price, which likely cover different lookup domains.

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 description gives clear context for when to use each action, including required and optional parameters for each. For example, 'Requires `chain` and `address`' for wallet_balances, and 'Optional `chain`, `limit`' for wallet_transactions. It also explains the payment flow (first call returns paymentRequired, retry with paymentPayload). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases like 'use network.token_price for simple price queries', so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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

All Abstraxn Agent Layer toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are broadly distinct by domain (market, network, social, travel, web3), but some overlap exists between market.crypto and network.token_price (both provide token prices), and between network.token_info and web3.lookup's token_metadata action. However, the descriptions clarify the differences well.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a domain.subdomain pattern (e.g., market.crypto, network.gas_info), but the subdomains mix styles: dots (market.crypto), underscores (network.token_info), and plain names (travel.search). Additionally, actions within tools like 'places.lookup' have inconsistent naming (text_search_full vs. solar_building_insights).

Tool Count4/5

With 11 tools covering diverse domains (crypto, network, places, social, travel, web3), the count is reasonable. However, some tools encapsulate many actions (e.g., market.crypto has 6 actions, places.lookup has 12), hinting at a slightly heavy surface, but overall it fits the broad scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows for each domain: crypto market data, network operations (block, gas, transfers, tokens), place search, social profile lookup, travel search, and web3 lookups. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for sending transactions or managing user accounts), but the stated purpose (agent layer for diverse tasks) is mostly fulfilled.

Resources