Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Moralis MCP Server

Moralis MCP Server

Official
by MoralisWeb3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evm_getwalletprofitability

Analyze wallet profitability by calculating profit and loss breakdowns for tokens over specified timeframes, with optional filtering for specific tokens.

Instructions

Get a detailed profit and loss breakdown by token for a given wallet, over a specified timeframe (days). Optionally filter by token_addresses for specific tokens.

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": "evm_getwalletprofitability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesThe wallet address for which profitability is to be retrieved.
daysNoTimeframe in days for which profitability is calculated, Options include 'all', '7', '30', '60', '90' default is 'all'.
chainNoThe chain to queryeth
token_addressesNoThe token addresses list to filter the result with

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain / default
      Added value: +"eth"
    • changedInput schema / properties / chain / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "eth",
-  "mainnet",
-  "0x1",
-  "matic",
-  "0x89",
-  "polygon",
-  "bsc",
-  "binance",
-  "0x38",
-  "fantom",
-  "ftm",
-  "0xfa",
-  "arbitrum",
-  "0xa4b1",
-  "optimism",
-  "0xa",
-  "base",
-  "0x2105",
-  "linea",
-  "0xe708",
-  "0x7e4",
-  "ronin"
-]New value: +[
+  "eth",
+  "0x1",
+  "sepolia",
+  "0xaa36a7",
+  "polygon",
+  "0x89",
+  "bsc",
+  "0x38",
+  "bsc testnet",
+  "0x61",
+  "avalanche",
+  "0xa86a",
+  "fantom",
+  "0xfa",
+  "cronos",
+  "0x19",
+  "arbitrum",
+  "0xa4b1",
+  "chiliz",
+  "0x15b38",
+  "chiliz testnet",
+  "0x15b32",
+  "gnosis",
+  "0x64",
+  "gnosis testnet",
+  "0x27d8",
+  "base",
+  "0x2105",
+  "base sepolia",
+  "0x14a34",
+  "optimism",
+  "0xa",
+  "holesky",
+  "0x4268",
+  "polygon amoy",
+  "0x13882",
+  "linea",
+  "0xe708",
+  "moonbeam",
+  "0x504",
+  "moonriver",
+  "0x505",
+  "moonbase",
+  "0x507",
+  "linea sepolia",
+  "0xe705",
+  "flow",
+  "0x2eb",
+  "flow-testnet",
+  "0x221",
+  "ronin",
+  "0x7e4",
+  "ronin-testnet",
+  "0x7e5",
+  "lisk",
+  "0x46f",
+  "lisk-sepolia",
+  "0x106a",
+  "pulse",
+  "0x171",
+  "sei-testnet",
+  "0x530",
+  "sei",
+  "0x531",
+  "monad",
+  "0x8f"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) but does not specify rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool with financial data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key optional parameters, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of P&L breakdown), error handling, and behavioral constraints, which are critical for proper agent usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional filter by token_addresses and timeframe, but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already specifies.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a detailed profit and loss breakdown') and resources ('by token for a given wallet'), distinguishing it from siblings like evm_getwalletnetworth or evm_getwalletprofitabilitysummary by focusing on token-level P&L over a timeframe.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving token-level P&L over a timeframe, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like evm_getwalletprofitabilitysummary or evm_getwallethistory, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools