Skip to main content
Glama

Wallet Summary

wallet_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a wallet's aggregate metrics: volume, inflow, outflow, net flow, tx count, tokens traded across time windows (24h/7d/30d/90d/all). Without chain it answers for the more recently active of ethereum and bsc, and for base or hyperevm only when the wallet has no priced ethereum/bsc volume; the result's chain says which.

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_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoAnswer for this chain only (default: see the tool description)
addressYesWallet address (0x-prefixed hex)

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 the safe, read-only, idempotent profile. The description adds genuinely important non-obvious behavior: without `chain`, the result is selected from a specific fallback priority across chains, and the response reports which chain was chosen.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core metrics, and every sentence earns its place. The chain-default caveat is unusual enough to justify its inclusion despite the length.

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 two-parameter read-only aggregate tool with strong annotations, the description covers the key metrics, time windows, and the unusual chain fallback behavior. No output schema is needed because the metrics returned are enumerated in the description.

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 would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema by fully explaining the non-obvious default resolution for `chain`, which the schema itself defers to the tool description.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Get a wallet's aggregate metrics') and enumerates the metrics and time windows, so the tool is clearly distinguishable from detail-oriented wallet tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, which keeps it just below the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool's role as an aggregate-overview lookup rather than a detailed transaction or PnL tool. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives, so the agent must infer the routing.

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.