Skip to main content
Glama

walletlink.social

Submit a background lookup job

walletlink_submit_job

Submit a list of addresses as a background job. A job runs a deeper scan than the resolve tool: an address the index has not checked, or holds only stale answers for, is resolved against live sources, so a job can find identities the resolve tool reports as never seen. Use it for lists larger than one resolve call, or when misses are worth re-checking.

COST: billed on matches exactly like resolving, when the job completes: one match credit per address that resolved to an X handle or a Farcaster account, misses free. One job may be active per account at a time; a second submission is refused until the first finishes, and the refusal names the active job id. A submission is capped at 10 times the match balance, so the worst case is bounded by what the account already holds. Submitting itself spends one request-unit of the rate window.

The submission returns a job id. Poll walletlink_job_status for progress and, on completion, the results. A job that fails is never billed.

Resubmitting the same list after a job completes runs the whole job again and bills its matches again.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressesYesEthereum addresses, each 0x followed by 40 hex characters. Case does not matter. The ceiling is the balance-derived cap, not a fixed number; a list over the cap is refused with the cap named.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only carry shallow flags (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds substantial behavioral detail: billing on matches, free misses, one active job per account, refusal behavior naming the active job id, the 10x balance cap, request-unit cost, polling flow, no billing on failure, and resubmission re-running and re-billing.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: core purpose first, comparison to the alternative, explicit usage condition, cost and limits, return behavior, and resubmission warning. The structure is scannable with clear paragraphing.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what the submission returns (a job id), how to retrieve results (poll job_status), the cost model, failure handling, concurrency limit, and resubmission semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this asynchronous tool correctly is missing.

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% and already documents the address format and balance-derived cap. The description adds the exact 10x multiplier, the active-job limitation, and notes that case does not matter, going slightly beyond the schema without being duplicative.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a list of addresses as a background job.' It clearly distinguishes this from the resolve tool by explaining that a job performs a deeper scan against live sources, and it also names the polling sibling (walletlink_job_status) for results.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use it for lists larger than one resolve call, or when misses are worth re-checking.' This directly tells an agent when to choose this tool over the resolve tool and implies the alternative for lighter or single lookups.

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.