Dechonet MCP

Wallet Address Check

wallet_address_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a crypto wallet address by identifying its chain, verifying checksum format, and checking OFAC/FBI sanctions and DechoNet phishing flags before interaction.

Instructions

Check one crypto wallet address: which chain it belongs to (EVM, TRON, Bitcoin, Solana — from the format alone), whether its checksum is valid (EIP-55, Base58Check, bech32/bech32m), whether it is on the US Treasury OFAC SDN sanctions list (read daily) or among the addresses the FBI published in an alert (the Binance theft of October 2026, 628 addresses), and how many pages DechoNet's phishing check judged dangerous showed it. Listed means on that day's list, not a finding about the owner; not listed is not a statement that the address is clean (most scam addresses are on no list). Balances, transaction history and the owner are not looked at — see 'Not checked'. The address is not stored. Use crypto_check_before_sign to judge an address together with the page that asked and the wallet request. Read-only; no API key; rate-limited.

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": "wallet_address_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Wallet address (0x…, T…, bc1…/1…/3…, or a Solana address)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`receipts`	No	Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com
`observation`	No	How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Oct 31, 2026

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, open-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: lists are read daily, 'listed' means on that day's list and is not a finding about the owner, the address is not stored, no API key is needed, and calls are rate-limited. It loses a point only because the closing 'Read-only; no API key; rate-limited' partially restates annotation territory and no rate-limit magnitude is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The scope and the key disambiguation are front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries information (the 628-address detail and the 'not a finding about the owner' caveat earn their space). Minor waste: the trailing 'Read-only; no API key; rate-limited' duplicates annotation signals, and the dangling reference to 'Not checked' points at something not present in this definition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description instead supplies the interpretive context an agent needs (what the lists mean, what is deliberately not inspected, data-handling and auth posture). For a single-parameter read tool, nothing material is missing.

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% and the schema already gives address examples, so baseline would be 3; the description still adds meaning by tying accepted formats to the four chains and the corresponding checksum standards it will validate against. That helps an agent predict what a given input will yield, though it does not add per-parameter syntax beyond the schema examples.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check one crypto wallet address') and enumerates exactly what the result contains: chain derivation from format, checksum validity (EIP-55, Base58Check, bech32/bech32m), OFAC SDN listing, FBI-published addresses, and DechoNet phishing page count. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling crypto_check_before_sign, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It states the single-address, format-and-lists scope, names the alternative ('Use crypto_check_before_sign to judge an address together with the page that asked and the wallet request'), and draws a clear boundary around what is out of scope ('Balances, transaction history and the owner are not looked at'). The caveat that not being listed is not a clean bill of health further constrains how results should be used.

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