wallet-tracker

get_leaderboard

Read-only

Top tracked wallets ranked by performance for a chain, wallet type and period.

Use for "best Solana KOLs today", "top whales this week", and similar.



blockchain: solana, bnb, base, eth or rh

wallet_type: kol, smart or whale. whale is Solana only, eth has kol only.

period: 6h, 1d, 7d or 30d (default 1d)

limit: how many wallets (default 20)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many entries to return. Keep it small: large results are trimmed to fit the context window anyway.
`period`	No	Statistics window: 6h, 1d, 7d or 30d. Longer windows return far more data and get trimmed harder, so prefer the shortest window that answers the question.	1d
`blockchain`	Yes	Blockchain. One of: solana, bnb, base, eth, rh. solana has kol, smart and whale wallets; bnb, base and rh have kol and smart; eth has kol only. rh is Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum L2.
`wallet_type`	No	Wallet type. kol is a Key Opinion Leader, an influencer whose calls move markets. smart is a wallet selected for its track record. whale is a large holder, Solana only.	kol

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., ranking by performance) but does not disclose data freshness, pagination details, or default sorting direction. For a read-only query tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose, usage examples, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition. It is well structured and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters with simple types, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use cases, parameter constraints, and valid combinations. It lacks a definition of 'performance' (e.g., is it ROI, volume, or win rate?), which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds some nuance (e.g., defining wallet types 'kol', 'smart', 'whale' and noting Robinhood Chain as an L2), but this largely mirrors the schema. The baseline is 3, and the added context does not significantly surpass it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves top wallets ranked by performance for a given chain, wallet type, and period. It provides concrete usage examples like 'best Solana KOLs today', which makes the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like compare_wallets, and the ranking metric ('performance') is vague.

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 explicit use cases ('Use for...') and explains parameter constraints (e.g., whale is Solana only, eth has kol only). It guides the agent on valid combinations. It does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives, but the examples are sufficient for typical queries.

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

All wallet-tracker tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function—comparing tokens vs. wallets, detecting bundles, retrieving historical vs. current signals, etc. Overlap is minimal, and descriptions clearly differentiate similar-sounding tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_, detect_, get_, list_, lookup_), all in snake_case, making it easy to predict and understand the purpose of each tool.

Tool Count4/5

With 21 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, but the breadth of functionality—covering wallet stats, tokens, signals, bundles, and comparisons across multiple blockchains—warrants the number. No tool feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers essentially all aspects of wallet tracking: browsing, per-wallet stats/history/holdings/connections, token-level analysis, signals, bundles, leaderboards, and activity metrics. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?