Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Vike Data API

by io.vike
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Wallet Counterparties

wallet_counterparties
Read-onlyIdempotent

Top trading partners of an ETH/BSC/Base/HyperEVM wallet by combined transfer volume. Returns counterparty address, total volume, amount sent/received, tx count, first/last seen, and labels (when known). Use when the user asks 'who does this wallet trade with' / 'main counterparties of X'.

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_counterparties"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain (default ethereum)ethereum
limitNoMax counterparties (default 10, max 50)
windowNoWindow (default 30d)30d
addressYesWallet address (0x-prefixed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the ranking is by combined transfer volume, the return set includes volume, sent/received amounts, tx counts, first/last seen, and labels 'when known' (a caveat about label availability). It doesn't discuss rate limits or ordering, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is solid.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return fields and usage triggers. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields (address, volume, sent/received, tx count, first/last seen, labels) is essential and present. Annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters, so the definition is nearly complete; it could mention whether results are ordered by volume (implied by 'top') or how the window affects the ranking, but that is minor.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including enums and defaults. The description's mention of 'ETH/BSC/Base/HyperEVM' maps to the chain enum but adds no new syntax or semantic nuance (e.g., how window interacts with 'combined transfer volume'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource (counterparties) and the ranking metric ('combined transfer volume'), making the tool's function immediately clear and distinct from raw transaction or summary tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like wallet_transactions, but the resource itself is unique enough that an agent can differentiate.

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 concrete user-phrasing examples ('who does this wallet trade with', 'main counterparties of X'), which is strong positive routing guidance. However, it doesn't state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., wallet_summary for aggregate balances, wallet_transactions for raw history), leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Vike Data API 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