Advan

Wallet portfolio

wallet_portfolio

Fetches a Solana wallet's SOL, SPL Token, and Token-2022 balances with Jupiter Price V3 pricing, returning a priced portfolio for a given owner address via a $0.01 USDC x402 request.

Instructions

Paid wallet portfolio ($0.01 USDC via x402 exact). SOL plus SPL Token and Token-2022 balances, priced with Jupiter Price V3.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>"
    },
    "name": "wallet_portfolio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`owner`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call is paid ($0.01 USDC, x402 exact scheme), which is a real behavioral trait an agent must know, but it says nothing about failure modes (insufficient payment, invalid owner), rate limits, or whether the pricing call can fail independently of the balance fetch.

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?

Two terse fragments, cost and coverage front-loaded, no filler. Slightly telegraphic ('Paid wallet portfolio (...)') but every clause carries information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it returns, what it costs) but leaves the return shape, sorting, empty-wallet behavior, and owner semantics unstated, so an agent must infer them.

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?

There is one parameter, 'owner', with no schema description (0% coverage); only a base58-style regex pattern hints it is a Solana address. The description implies a wallet but never says 'the wallet address to inspect' or clarifies whether it accepts an ATA, program ID, or any pubkey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete resource (wallet portfolio) and enumerates exactly what it returns: SOL, SPL Token and Token-2022 balances priced with Jupiter Price V3. That is enough to separate it from token_risk, get_quote and build_swap_tx, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The paid framing ('$0.01 USDC via x402 exact') implies when the caller should be willing to invoke it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over token_risk or get_quote, nor any note on prerequisites such as having an x402 payment channel set up.

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

Deploy Server