Get a Solana wallet's profile including funding source, network memberships, exchange attribution, tags, and created tokens. Use this to assess wallet activity and associations.
Wallet profile: funding source, network membership, exchange attribution, tags, and tokens created by this wallet.
Price: $0.01 (paid in USDC on Solana via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Solana wallet 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 burden. It does disclose that this is a wallet profile lookup and importantly notes the $0.01 payment via x402, which is a relevant cost/behavioral detail. However, it does not mention response format, failure modes, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the payment mechanism.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a distinct, useful pricing detail. Nothing is verbose, though it could be slightly more action-oriented.
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 read tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what data will be returned and the cost. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the response structure, and it does not address prerequisites such as whether the address must be verified or whether the x402 payment flow requires any additional input from the agent.
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 covers the single parameter fully with 'Solana wallet address (base58)', so the description does not need to add much. The description's reference to 'this wallet' adds little beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies what the tool returns: a wallet profile with funding source, network membership, exchange attribution, tags, and tokens created by the wallet. It is reasonably specific and suggests a read-oriented lookup, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get' and does not strongly distinguish itself from wallet_details_children.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like wallet_details_children, network_details_wallets, or holder_analysis. The listed data categories imply a use case, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.