Vike Data API

Wallet First Funder

wallet_first_funder

Read-onlyIdempotent

The earliest inbound transfers of a wallet, from our own transfer tables, as TWO separate answers: first_native_in (the first plain send of the chain's coin to the wallet, at least min_native WHOLE coins; amount in whole coins, amount_wei exact in wei) and first_token_in (the first token transfer priced at min_usd USD or more; amount in whole tokens). Each carries the sender, its label (entity, wallet_type, label_confidence), time, tx_hash, block and amount_usd in plain dollars (null = no USD price). This is NOT proof of who funded the wallet: native rows hold top-level sends only (coin moved by a contract call or a bridge is absent), history starts on a different date per chain (coverage.history_from), and the sender may be an exchange or a relay. found is false when neither exists. On hyperevm, protocol system addresses appear as senders and come back with wallet_type 'system' (no entity name). Use when the user asks 'who funded this wallet' / 'where did its first coins come from', and pass the coverage caveats on.

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_first_funder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain (default ethereum)	ethereum
`address`	Yes	Wallet address (0x-prefixed)
`min_usd`	No	Floor for the token side in USD. Token transfers priced below it, or with no USD price, are skipped. Default 1; 0 = no floor (unpriced tokens, mostly spam, included).
`min_native`	No	Dust floor for the native coin in WHOLE coins (ETH, BNB or HYPE; 0.01 means 0.01 coin, not wei). Inbound native transfers below it are skipped. Default 0.0001; 0 = no floor (the very first inbound, probing dust included).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that native rows are top-level sends only, that history start dates vary per chain via `coverage.history_from`, that senders may be exchanges/relays, that hyperevm system addresses surface with wallet_type 'system', and that `found` is false when neither exists. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret results responsibly.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: the two outputs are defined first, then caveats, then usage. It is long for a single paragraph, but nearly every clause carries information; minor cost in readability.

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?

No output schema, yet the description enumerates the return fields (sender, label bundle, time, tx_hash, block, amount_usd, found flag, coverage) and their null semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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; the description still adds value by emphasizing `min_native` is in WHOLE coins (not wei) and that `amount` is whole coins while `amount_wei` is exact, plus clarifying null USD price semantics. Marginal but genuine added meaning.

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+resource ('earliest inbound transfers of a wallet') and clearly splits the answer into two named outputs (`first_native_in` and `first_token_in`), each defined. An agent can distinguish this from wallet_trace or wallet_transactions without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use trigger is given: "Use when the user asks 'who funded this wallet' / 'where did its first coins come from', and pass the coverage caveats on." It also names what the tool is NOT (proof of funding). It does not explicitly route to a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tools Inspect

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.