SicariusGuard

get_wallet_reputation

Check a Solana wallet's reputation by analyzing its age, funding source, and entity classification to determine trustworthiness before transacting.

Instructions

Analyze a Solana wallet's reputation using Helius DAS identity data and funding chain analysis. Checks deployer/wallet age, funding source identity, and known entity classification. Returns a JSON object with creatorAddress, reputation verdict, riskScore, flags, creatorAge, and identity data. This is a read-only operation — queries Helius API with no on-chain side effects. Use this to evaluate whether a token deployer or counterparty wallet is trustworthy before transacting. Do not use this for token analysis — use check_token_safety or full_token_scan for that. Requires a Helius API key for full results.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "get_wallet_reputation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Solana wallet address to investigate (base58)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses it is a read-only operation with no on-chain side effects, queries Helius API, and requires an API key for full results. This is comprehensive given no annotations.

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?

The description is structured with key information upfront, but could be slightly more concise. Each sentence adds value, though the list of return fields might be streamlined.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the tool's behavior, return fields, and limitations, making it complete for an AI agent.

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?

The single parameter 'address' has schema description (base58 Solana wallet address). The description adds context that it is the wallet to investigate, providing some extra meaning 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 analyzes Solana wallet reputation using Helius DAS identity data and funding chain analysis, with specific outputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly excluding token analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use (evaluate wallet trustworthiness before transacting) and when-not-to-use (do not use for token analysis, use check_token_safety or full_token_scan instead).

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

Deploy Server