Inspect an EVM wallet for recent transactions, token flows, DEX swaps, NFT activity, counterparties and a heuristic risk score. $0.03/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| address | Yes | EVM wallet address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / address / descriptionPrevious value: -"Wallet address to monitor"New value: +"EVM wallet address"Input schema / properties / address / patternAdded value: +"^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$"Input schema / properties / chain / enumPrevious value: -[
- "base",
- "ethereum"
-]New value: +[
+ "ethereum",
+ "base"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the heuristic nature of the risk score and the cost, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. The word 'Inspect' implies a safe lookup, but more context could be added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action and resource, lists the key data categories, and ends with cost. Every element earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderately complex tool with no output schema, the description lists the main output categories (transactions, flows, swaps, NFTs, counterparties, risk score), giving a solid sense of what is returned. It lacks some usage nuance (e.g., chain scope) but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'address' has a description). The description does not add meaning to 'chain' beyond the enum/default in the schema, nor explain how chain selection affects results. It fails to compensate for the undocumented chain parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on chain scope.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect an EVM wallet' and enumerates specific data categories such as transactions, token flows, DEX swaps, NFT activity, counterparties, and risk score. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'wallet_analyze', which may overlap in functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting wallet activity, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over wallet_analyze or other alternatives. It lacks any 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, so usage is merely implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.