OMENZ agent tools

wallet_spend

Agent Wallet Spend Report: what has this wallet been paying for? Outgoing USDC payments on Base over the last N days (max 14), grouped by payee, each payee named with the x402 services that pay out to it (from the ~35k-endpoint x402 index), totals, daily rate, micropayment count, share going to known x402 sellers. Public chain data. By OMENZ. (MCP calls run in AYNE, the free playzone; production: GET https://www.omenz.org/api/tollbooth/v1/wallet/spend, $0.005 via x402.)

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_spend"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`address`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that data is public chain data (read-only, no auth implied), caps the lookback at 14 days, and lists the computed fields returned. It also discloses the cost model (free in the AYNE playzone, $0.005 per call via x402 in production) and the underlying HTTP endpoint, which is genuinely useful context beyond the schema. It stops short of covering empty-result or invalid-address behavior.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the detail is information-dense rather than padded. The trailing parenthetical about the endpoint and pricing earns its place, though 'By OMENZ' is filler and the middle section reads as a single overstuffed run-on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description effectively documents the return payload (per-payee grouping, x402 service names, totals, daily rate, micropayment count, share to known sellers) and the data source and cost. For a 2-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; only error/empty-result behavior and address format are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does well for 'days' by giving the max-14 constraint, and 'address' is implicitly framed as a Base wallet address via 'Outgoing USDC payments on Base'. It adds no format, validation, or default guidance for 'address' and does not state a default for 'days', so the compensation is partial.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource pair — an outgoing USDC spend report for a given wallet on Base — and frames it as a question ('what has this wallet been paying for?'). It also scopes the output shape (grouped by payee, x402 service names, totals, daily rate, micropayment count), which clearly separates it from balance/runway siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing question and by the 'last N days (max 14)' window, so an agent can infer this is the tool for historical outbound payment analysis. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of an alternative such as wallet_balance or wallet_runway for other questions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OMENZ agent tools 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.

Resources

Need Help?