Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
traivo-mcp

traivo-mcp

Official
by traivoxyz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Wallet portfolio

get_portfolio
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve public token holdings and USD values for any Ethereum wallet address, including priced tokens, unpriced symbols, and total portfolio value.

Instructions

Public token holdings of any address on Ethereum mainnet: ETH, USDC, Ondo tokenized stocks and discovered tokens, each with balance, USD price, price source (dex, peg or chainlink) and value, plus the total. Symbols listed in unpriced are held but have no price. Use network=testnet for Sepolia (ETH and test USDC only).

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": "get_portfolio"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesEVM wallet address (0x…). Public data only; no signature needed.
networkNomainnet = Ethereum (default); testnet = Sepolia.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the price-source taxonomy (dex, peg, chainlink), the fact that symbols in `unpriced` are held but have no price, and that testnet exposes only ETH and test USDC. Missing items like rate limits or discovery caps keep it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the two trailing sentences each carry distinct facts (unpriced symbols, testnet scope) with no filler. The opening sentence is heavily packed with comma-separated field lists, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so well — fields, price sources, the total, and the unpriced edge case. For a 2-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is nearly complete, though a note on discovery limits or address/data availability caveats would close the gap.

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%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description goes further by stating that network=testnet means Sepolia and that its holdings set is restricted to ETH and test USDC — meaningful semantics about the consequences of the enum value that the schema does not state.

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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: token holdings for any address, broken out as ETH, USDC, Ondo tokenized stocks and discovered tokens, each with balance, price, price source and value plus a total. An agent knows exactly what comes back. It falls short of 5 because it never names a sibling (e.g. get_onchain_tokens or get_hyperliquid_account) to contrast against.

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 only explicit routing guidance is 'Use network=testnet for Sepolia (ETH and test USDC only)', which clarifies a parameter choice rather than when to pick this tool over alternatives in a crowded wallet/token sibling set. Usage is implied by 'public token holdings' but there are no exclusions or named alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools