analyze_wallet
Look up a specific wallet's worth-copying read (copyability / Realizability Score / risk) by address. venue 'hl' (Hyperliquid) or 'pm' (Polymarket).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| venue | No | ||
| address | Yes |
Look up a specific wallet's worth-copying read (copyability / Realizability Score / risk) by address. venue 'hl' (Hyperliquid) or 'pm' (Polymarket).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| venue | No | ||
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it returns score types and is a lookup (read-only), but no details on side effects, auth, or rate limits. Adequate given no annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
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?
Covers key inputs and output concept, but could mention that return is a score. Good for a simple tool.
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?
Adds meaning to 'venue' by explaining enum values (Hyperliquid, Polymarket). 'address' is not explained beyond schema. With 0% schema coverage, partial compensation.
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?
Clearly states it looks up a wallet's score (copyability/Realizability Score/risk) by address, with venue options. Differentiates from sibling tools that find lists of traders.
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?
Implies use for single wallet analysis vs siblings for finding traders, but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.