obol

obol_wallet_portfolio

Retrieve a complete Solana wallet portfolio with token prices, NFTs, and breakdown for $0.05 USDC per request.

Instructions

Get full wallet portfolio — all token holdings with prices, NFTs, and breakdown. Costs $0.05 USDC.

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": "obol_wallet_portfolio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Solana wallet address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Aug 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention a cost ($0.05 USDC) and lists what is included, which adds value. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only (though 'Get' implies it). The cost is useful, but the description falls short of fully transparent behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It states the core purpose first, then lists contents and cost—every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a good sense of the return (holdings, prices, NFTs, breakdown) and the cost. It could explicitly note whether SOL itself is included or whether the response is paginated, but given the low complexity and high schema coverage, it is largely complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'address' is already documented as 'Solana wallet address'. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, required network). Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full wallet portfolio'), and enumerates its contents (token holdings, prices, NFTs, breakdown), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like obol_wallet_overview or obol_wallet_activity without needing to read their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling wallet tools (overview, activity, risk, pnl, defi_positions). It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or recommend alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server