gexno-web3

lookup_wallet

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up an Ethereum address to retrieve its ETH balance, contract status, outbound transaction count, and simple risk heuristics for read-only wallet checks.

Instructions

Look up an Ethereum wallet: ETH balance, contract flag, outbound tx count, and simple risk heuristics (ok / new_wallet / contract / eip7702). EIP-7702 delegated EOAs report risk=eip7702. Read-only; not an AML score.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045"
    },
    "name": "lookup_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Ethereum address (0x + 40 hex)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the exact risk taxonomy (ok / new_wallet / contract / eip7702) and the semantics of the eip7702 case, plus a disclaimer that the heuristic is not an AML score. It omits behavior for invalid or non-existent addresses, but the schema pattern mitigates that.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields, then the risk taxonomy, then the scope caveat. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and naming all four risk values, which is the key data an agent needs to interpret results. The only remaining gap is absence of any note on how addresses with no activity are reported (presumably 'new_wallet'), which is minor given the enumerated taxonomy.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Ethereum address (0x + 40 hex)') plus a pattern and an example, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about the address parameter beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 specifies a concrete verb and resource ('Look up an Ethereum wallet') and enumerates exactly what comes back: ETH balance, contract flag, outbound tx count, and risk heuristics. It is clearly distinct from the only sibling, lookup_nft, which is about NFTs rather than wallet-level risk and balance data.

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?

It sets an explicit usage boundary by stating it is 'Read-only; not an AML score,' which tells the agent not to treat the output as a compliance verdict. It doesn't name lookup_nft as the alternative for NFT queries or state when a wallet lookup is the wrong first step, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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

Deploy Server