Skip to main content
Glama

wallet-tracker

by xyz.cabalspy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lookup_wallet

Read-only
Identify a wallet address: is it tracked, and by what name. Returns the label
CabalSpy attached to it — name, Twitter, Telegram, wallet type and chain.
Start here when a user pastes an address and asks who it is.

On EVM chains the same address can be tracked on several of them and only the
first match is returned, so the reported chain may not be the intended one.

address: the wallet address to look up

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesWallet address. Base58 on Solana, 0x-prefixed hex on the EVM chains.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Added value: +"Wallet address. Base58 on Solana, 0x-prefixed hex on the EVM chains."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "lookup_walletDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Removed value: -"Wallet address (Solana base58 or 0x… for EVM chains)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / address / examples
      Removed value: -[
-  "G6fUXjMKPJzCY1rveAE6Qm7wy5U3vZgKDJmN1VPAdiZC"
-]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "lookup_walletDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveat: on EVM chains only the first match is returned, so the reported chain may not be the intended one. That is real operational context the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting coverage gaps (e.g. untracked addresses) or rate limits.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the caveat, then the parameter — good ordering and no filler. The final line restating the address parameter is redundant given the 100%-covered schema, a minor wasted sentence.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, the entry-point usage cue, and the one behavioral gotcha. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly without duplicating return-value documentation.

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% and the schema's own description (Base58 on Solana, 0x-hex on EVM) is more informative than the description's restatement 'the wallet address to look up'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully carries parameter meaning and the description adds nothing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('identify a wallet address') and enumerates exactly what is returned (name, Twitter, Telegram, wallet type, chain). Clearly separable from siblings like list_wallets and get_wallet_tracker, which enumerate or track rather than resolve a single pasted address.

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?

'Start here when a user pastes an address and asks who it is' gives an explicit trigger condition and positions the tool as the entry point. It does not name a when-not case or a sibling to prefer for other intents, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

All wallet-tracker toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources