wallet-tracker

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

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds useful context: it returns a label with specific attributes (name, Twitter, etc.) and warns about EVM chain behavior where the reported chain may not be the intended one. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is reasonably concise with a clear purpose, usage guidance, and a key caveat. However, it contains some redundancy (parameter description in both schema and description) and could be slightly more compact. Still efficient for the information it conveys.

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 simplicity (1 required parameter, read-only, explicit output schema exists), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, when to use, key limitation (EVM chain behavior), and parameter details. No major gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 a clear description for the 'address' parameter including format details (Base58 for Solana, 0x-prefixed hex for EVM). The description repeats the parameter name but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it identifies a wallet address and returns associated labels including name, Twitter, Telegram, wallet type, and chain. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_wallets and get_wallet_holdings by specifying the exact lookup action.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here when a user pastes an address and asks who it is,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. Also warns about EVM chain behavior where only the first match is returned, which informs when results might be ambiguous. Lacks explicit mention of alternatives but is sufficiently distinct from siblings.

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?