Skip to main content
Glama
n1n4du

MTRKR MCP Server

by n1n4du
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

mtrkr_companion_compare

Compare up to 5 wallets for a selected MegaETH Terminal campaign wave, viewing transaction analytics and optional user-asserted points side by side.

Instructions

Wallet transaction analytics: focused on the MegaETH Terminal bonus campaign as a wave-to-wave companion (latest interactions per selected wave, coaching-style output)—not official campaign scoring. MTRKR + Blockscout; campaign waves use explicit startDate/endDate in config (e.g. wave 1: 2026-04-28–2026-05-05). API still labels responses with wave* field names. strategyProfile is heuristic, not official bonus math. Analyzer API v2026.04+: EOAs that received native ETH or ERC-20 from the primary wallet in the pre-period funding lookback appear in linkedWallets; their outbound txs in that window merge into totals, token flow attribution, timeline, and waveTransactionLedger (each row has originWallet; waveTransactionLedgerMeta.linkedWalletsMerged). In currentWave, waveTransactionLedger lists each outbound tx in the period (newest-first cap in meta): action, summary, swaps/bridges/transfers via decoder, plus terminalAppKey when to matches a tracked app contract. outboundTxCountInWave counts all merged outbound txs in the window; terminalMatchedOutboundTxCount / usedApps are tracked-contract attribution only. POST compare: same Terminal wave selection for up to 5 unique wallets (deduped after .mega resolution). Optional pointsByAddress maps 0x or .mega keys to user-asserted points — alignment is estimates only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressesYesUp to 5 wallets (0x or .mega); list is deduped after name resolution
waveNo
waveIdNo
whichWaveNo
pointsByAddressNoOptional map of wallet (0x or .mega) to { totalPoints, breakdown? }

Tool Definition Quality

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided; the description compensates well by explaining the post behavior, deduplication, linked wallets, heuristic strategy, and response structure. Could mention read-only nature or rate limits, 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.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overly verbose, cramming many internal details (linkedWallets, waveTransactionLedger) into a single block. Could be broken into clearer sections or shortened.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains response fields (linkedWallets, waveTransactionLedger, etc.) and overall behavior. Missing explanation for waveId and whichWave, but otherwise thorough.

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 coverage is 40% (addresses and pointsByAddress described). The description adds meaning to addresses (0x/.mega, dedup) and pointsByAddress (optional map). However, wave, waveId, and whichWave are not explained in the description, leaving gaps.

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 it compares wallet transaction analytics for the MegaETH Terminal bonus campaign, using POST with up to 5 wallets. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing comparison and wave-to-wave companion context, and explicitly says it's not official scoring.

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?

Provides clear context (campaign analysis, unofficial) and mentions the compare endpoint for up to 5 wallets. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the focus on comparison versus single-wallet analysis (siblings) is implied.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/n1n4du/mtrkr-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server