Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Vike Data API

by io.vike
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Wallet Exchange Usage

wallet_exchange_usage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Which centralised exchanges a wallet sent to and received from over a window, computed from our transfers joined to the addresses the chain's label table marks as exchanges. Returns exchanges [{entity, sent_usd, recv_usd, sent_share, transfers, first_seen, last_seen, addresses, label_confidence, label_sources}] with USD in plain dollars (priced transfers only), and activity totals over ALL counterparties so shares can be checked. pattern is "sweeps_to_single_cex" when >=90% of the wallet's outgoing USD went to one exchange across >=3 outgoing transfers: an OBSERVED pattern, not a claim that the address is a deposit address. Exchange figures are a lower bound (an exchange address we have not labelled is invisible; labels are sparse on hyperevm) and labels are a consensus with a stated confidence, not a certainty. A very active wallet is refused with a message to narrow window. found is false when the wallet has no priced transfer in the window. Use when the user asks 'which exchanges does this wallet use' / 'does it send to an exchange'.

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_exchange_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain (default ethereum)ethereum
windowNoLook-back window (default 365d). A very active wallet may be refused over a long window: narrow it365d
addressYesWallet address (0x-prefixed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: discloses that exchange figures are a lower bound with sparse hyperevm labels, that labels are a consensus with stated confidence, that `pattern` is observed not asserted, that highly active wallets are refused, and that `found` can be false. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret results honestly.

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 returns, caveats, error behavior, and finally the trigger. Dense and largely waste-free, though the long inline field enumeration is heavy for a single paragraph and could be structured for easier scanning.

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 carries the return shape (exchanges fields plus activity totals) and edge cases (found=false, refusal on active wallets). Nothing material for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the narrowing remedy for the `window` refusal and the chain-specific label sparsity affecting results. It does not add further detail on `address` format beyond the schema, keeping it just under full marks.

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 ('which centralised exchanges a wallet sent to and received from') plus the derivation method (transfers joined to chain label table). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wallet_counterparties and wallet_label_provenance.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrasings ('which exchanges does this wallet use' / 'does it send to an exchange'), which directly tells the agent when to select it. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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