Skip to main content
Glama

Wallet Check

wallet_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Everything we know about ONE address in one call: a wallet checker / address lookup. Each part is its own block: ens (reverse ENS name), tags (names attached to the address, e.g. a token's name), labels (per chain: entity and wallet type), label_sources (which source claimed what about the address, read for Ethereum; third-party providers are named provider_a to provider_e), label_origins (BNB Chain, Base, HyperEVM: the origins each chain's label records and what each claimed, origin one of third_party (provider_a), model (our heuristic, with its source, confidence (null = not scored) and tier), cross_chain (copied from the same address's label on from_chain) or unknown; a claim can differ from the label), onchain (transfer count per chain where the address is active), code (per chain, the code found at the address when last checked: contract, eip7702 delegated wallet, safe multisig or proxy; a chain absent means no code when checked, or not checked), token (name, symbol and chain when it is a token contract), first_funder (per chain: the earliest inbound coin and priced token transfers we hold, with sender and label; not proof of who funded the wallet), exchanges (per chain: the centralised exchanges it sent to and received from over 365 days, a lower bound), hl_trader, hl_vault, hl_builder (its Hyperliquid identity), polymarket (the Polymarket account at this address, its owner, and the accounts it owns), and summary (plain observed facts read off the blocks, never a verdict such as 'safe'). first_funder and exchanges cover every chain the address has transfers on, or only chain. A block missing from the answer could not be read; an empty one means we looked and found nothing. Use when the user pastes an address and asks 'whose wallet is this', 'what is this address' or 'check this wallet'; for one chain's funder or exchanges with other floors or windows, use wallet_first_funder / wallet_exchange_usage.

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_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoRead first_funder and exchanges on this chain only (default: every chain the address has transfers on)
addressYesEVM address (0x-prefixed, 42 chars), a wallet or a contract

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior; the description adds substantial semantics beyond that: missing vs empty blocks, first_funder is not proof of funding, exchanges is a lower bound, and summary is never a verdict. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and the block enumeration is dense but information-bearing because there is no output schema. However, it is a single long run-on list, so the usage guidance is buried at the end and the description could be easier to scan.

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 complex multi-block read with no output schema, the description explains every returned block, the chain parameter's effect, and the missing-vs-empty distinction. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters are documented there; the description repeats that chain limits first_funder and exchanges to one chain, but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries parameter semantics.

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 'Everything we know about ONE address in one call: a wallet checker / address lookup,' naming the verb, resource, and comprehensive one-call scope. It explicitly contrasts with wallet_first_funder and wallet_exchange_usage, so an agent can distinguish it from narrow siblings without opening schemas.

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 concrete trigger phrases ('whose wallet is this', 'what is this address', 'check this wallet') and a when-not rule: 'for one chain's funder or exchanges with other floors or windows, use wallet_first_funder / wallet_exchange_usage.' This is explicit routing rather than implied usage.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.