Skip to main content
Glama

Find wallet cluster

find_cluster
Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover wallets likely controlled by the same actor from one Solana address by scoring shared fee payers, co-signers, funders, rent flows, and timing signals.

Instructions

Start from one wallet and discover the other wallets likely controlled by the same actor: who pays its fees, who co-signs with it, where its token-account rent goes, which wallets share its funder, plus same-slot activity, creation time and timing similarity. Returns scored members with the signature evidence for each signal. Use compare_wallets instead when you already have the candidate list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseNoSave the result into this case file (created if missing) so later work and exports can use it
addressYesBase58 Solana address
txSampleNoRecent full transactions of the seed to mine for fee payers, co-signers and rent flows
maxCandidatesNoHow many discovered candidates to score in depth

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.0-development

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the description adds real value: it enumerates what's mined (fee payers, co-signers, rent flows, funder, timing) and discloses the output (scored members with signature evidence per signal). Doesn't mention cost/latency despite sampling 50-500 transactions, but overall strong.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by signal enumeration and routing. No filler.

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?

Complete for a discovery tool: purpose, signals, output shape, and alternative are all present. Only minor gaps around runtime/limits on sampled transactions remain, which are not essential to invoke correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic meaning: it explains how txSample and maxCandidates are used (transactions mined vs candidates scored in depth) and what 'discover' produces. The compute-heavy nature of larger samples is hinted but not quantified.

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?

Specific verb (discover) and resource (wallets controlled by same actor), with an enumerated list of evidence signals (fee payer, co-signers, rent, funder, same-slot). Clearly distinct from siblings and names compare_wallets as the alternative.

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?

Explicit positive case (start from one wallet with no candidate list) and an explicit negative: 'Use compare_wallets instead when you already have the candidate list.' Routes the agent unambiguously.

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