Identify wallets linked to a funding network by its top funding source address, with exchange labels and tags for risk analysis.
All wallets belonging to a funding network (by topFundingSource), with exchange labels and tags.
Price: $0.01 (paid in USDC on Solana via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| networkAddress | Yes | Top funding-network address (base58) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-style lookup and usefully discloses the $0.01 paid access via x402, but it does not mention pagination, result limits, ordering, error behavior, or prerequisites beyond the network address.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core result and then stating the cost. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives the essential result fields but leaves gaps around response shape, pagination, and how it relates to sibling tools like wallet_details_children. It is adequate for a simple call, but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes networkAddress as 'Top funding-network address (base58)' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is a 3. The phrase 'by topFundingSource' adds slight clarification that the address is interpreted as the top funding source, but the description provides no further format or example details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns all wallets belonging to a funding network, identified by topFundingSource, and includes exchange labels and tags. It is specific enough to be distinguished from single-wallet tools like wallet_details, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: whenever the agent needs the set of wallets underlying a funding network. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling, such as wallet_details_children, would be more appropriate, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.