wallet-tracker

get_wallet_tracker

Read-only

Period statistics for ONE wallet: realized PnL, win rate, volume, trade counts,

active tokens and win-rate distribution. The main tool for "how is this trader

doing".



blockchain: solana, bnb, base, eth or rh

address: the wallet address

period: 6h, 1d, 7d or 30d (default 1d). Longer periods return far more data

        and are trimmed harder; prefer the shortest period that answers it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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
`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

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: longer periods return more data and are trimmed harder, and each blockchain has specific wallet categories. No contradictions with annotations.

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, using bullet-like structure for parameters and a clear purpose statement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (covering return values) and clear annotations, the description sufficiently explains purpose, parameters, and behavioral nuances. No gaps remain for agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully explains parameters. The description adds extra context for the blockchain parameter (wallet types per chain) and reinforces the period recommendation, providing value beyond the schema.

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 provides period statistics for ONE wallet including PnL, win rate, volume, etc., and explicitly calls it 'The main tool for "how is this trader doing".' This is specific, actionable, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet_holdings or get_wallet_history.

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 advises 'prefer the shortest period that answers it' and details blockchain-specific wallet types (e.g., solana has kol, smart, whale). It gives clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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?