wallet-tracker

get_wallet_holdings

Read-only

Current onchain token holdings of a wallet, read live rather than derived from

tracked trades. Slower than the other wallet tools, often over a second. If

'loading' is true the data is still warming up — call again shortly.



blockchain: solana, bnb, base, eth or rh

address: the wallet address

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Wallet address. Base58 on Solana, 0x-prefixed hex on the EVM chains.
`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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that data is live (not cached), may take over a second, and may return a 'loading' state requiring a retry. This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by explaining the retry behavior and performance characteristic.

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 extremely concise, using two clear sentences plus a parameter list. Critical information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

For a read-only tool with an output schema (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the description covers essential context: live data, speed, loading state, supported blockchains, and address format. No obvious gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-documented in the schema. The description only restates the parameter names and allowed values, adding minimal new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'current onchain token holdings' that are 'live rather than derived from tracked trades'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing real-time data and slower performance.

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 notes the tool is slower than other wallet tools and advises calling again if 'loading' is true. This provides context but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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?