Skip to main content
Glama

nulucre-wallet-reputation

by io.github.vjshaw
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get EVM Wallet Reputation Score

nulucre_get_evm_wallet_score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a 0-100 trust score for an EVM wallet address (0x...) from Nulucre, a multi-chain wallet reputation oracle covering 81+ chains.

The score is computed from on-chain data including wallet age, transaction volume, DeFi activity, and multi-chain presence, pulled from Etherscan, Moralis, Alchemy, and Ankr.

Use this tool to assess counterparty risk before an agent interacts with or pays an EVM wallet on Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, or any of the 81+ supported chains.

Args:

  • wallet (string): EVM wallet address starting with '0x' (42 characters)

  • signed (boolean): If true, request an ECDSA-P256 signed score for independent verification via Nulucre's public JWKS endpoint (default: false)

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): Output format (default: 'markdown')

Returns: For JSON format: Structured data with schema: { "wallet": string, "score": number, // 0-100 "status": string, // TRUSTED | VERIFIED | CAUTION | RISKY | BLACKLISTED "breakdown": { "": { "score": number, "raw": string }, ... }, "chains"?: string[], "dataSource": string, "timestamp": string, "signature"?: string // present only when signed=true }

Examples:

  • Use when: "Is this Ethereum wallet trustworthy?" -> wallet="0xabc...", signed=false

  • Use when: "Get a verifiable score for this 0x address" -> wallet="0xabc...", signed=true

  • Don't use when: scoring a Stellar G... address (use nulucre_get_stellar_wallet_score instead)

Error Handling:

  • Returns "Error: Invalid EVM wallet address" if the address format is invalid

  • Returns a payment-required explanation if the free evaluation quota is exhausted

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signedNoIf true, requests an ECDSA-P256 cryptographically signed score for independent verification (higher cost endpoint)
walletYesEVM wallet address starting with '0x' (42 characters)
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for human-readable report or 'json' for machine-readable structured datamarkdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it names the upstream data sources (Etherscan, Moralis, Alchemy, Ankr), explains what the score is derived from, discloses that signing is a higher-cost endpoint verified via a public JWKS, and documents quota exhaustion behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly sectioned into Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling, all of which earn their place. It is somewhat long and the Args block partially repeats the input schema, costing a point.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the full return shape including score bands, breakdown, chains, timestamp, and conditional signature field. Combined with chain coverage and error handling, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the 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 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that signed=true enables independent verification through Nulucre's JWKS endpoint, and restates the price/quota implication behind the flag. The wallet and response_format entries largely mirror the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a 0-100 trust score for an EVM wallet address') with scope (81+ chains) and the oracle's data provenance. It explicitly delineates itself from sibling tools by naming the Stellar counterpart in the exclusions.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context ('assess counterparty risk before an agent interacts with or pays an EVM wallet'), concrete trigger examples, and a when-not-to-use clause that routes Stellar addresses to nulucre_get_stellar_wallet_score. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All nulucre-wallet-reputation 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