Skip to main content
Glama

walletlink.social

Resolve wallets to social identities

walletlink_resolve_wallets

Resolve one or more Ethereum addresses to the social identities attached to them: X handle, Farcaster account, ENS name, Lens profile, GitHub account.

COST: one match credit per address that resolves to an X handle or a Farcaster account. An address that resolves to nothing is free, and so is one carrying only an ENS name, a Lens profile or a GitHub account. Up to 50 addresses per call on the default plan; a live Scale pack raises the ceiling to 200 and Index to 1000, and the API refuses over YOUR ceiling with BATCH_SIZE_EXCEEDED naming it. A batch call spends one request-unit per address of the per-minute window, and a full batch fills most of a minute on every plan: the default plan gives 60 units per minute and 50-address batches, and a live Scale or Index pack raises both. Pace multi-batch runs a minute apart and read the reset time from the quota.

Each identity reports whether the address owner attested it rather than it being correlated by a third party, and each X handle reports whether it still reaches anyone: a handle can be attested and suspended, or freed and since taken by a stranger.

Send every address you need in one call. Duplicates are removed before you are charged, but each copy still costs throughput.

A retried call bills again: duplicates are removed inside one call, never across calls, and a tool call cannot carry an idempotency key. Before resending a call that may have gone through, read the balance instead of guessing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressesYesEthereum addresses, each 0x followed by 40 hex characters. Case does not matter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / addresses / maxItems
      Previous value: -50New value: +1000
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses credit costs, batch limits, duplicate removal and charging, retry billing, and the distinction between attested and correlated identities. It also warns about retries without idempotency keys – far more transparent than the annotations alone.

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 description is lengthy but every section (purpose, cost, limits, duplicates, retry) is purposeful and adds value. It is front-loaded with the core function and then provides necessary operational details without filler. Slightly long but justified by complexity.

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?

The description covers purpose, cost, limits, batching, duplicate handling, idempotency, and result characteristics (attestation, X handle status). Given there is no output schema, it gives enough insight into the response. It is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema already covers the address format, but the description adds crucial semantics: send all addresses in one call, duplicates are removed before charging but still cost throughput, and ceiling limits per plan (50/200/1000). This significantly enriches understanding of the 'addresses' parameter.

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 opens with 'Resolve one or more Ethereum addresses to the social identities attached to them' – a specific verb, resource, and outcome. It lists the identity types (X, Farcaster, ENS, Lens, GitHub) and clearly distinguishes this forward lookup from sibling tools like walletlink_wallets_by_x_handle (reverse lookup).

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?

The description gives detailed operational guidance: batching, credit costs, plan ceilings, pacing, and retry behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool versus siblings, so it falls 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.