Check wallet trust score for crypto payments.
Verifies wallet against scam lists and transaction patterns.
Supports EVM (0x...) and Solana (base58) addresses.
Args:
wallet_address: Blockchain wallet address
chain_id: CAIP-2 chain ID (default: eip155:8453 for Base)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | No | eip155:8453 | |
| wallet_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does convey the core behavior: checking wallet addresses against scam lists and transaction patterns, and supporting EVM/Solana formats. It does not disclose potential side effects, external data dependencies, rate limits, or explicitly state that this is a read-only lookup, though the wording strongly implies it.
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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and followed by a short behavior statement and an Args block. There is a slight redundancy between 'Check wallet trust score' and 'Verifies wallet against scam lists', but each sentence contributes useful information. Overall it is appropriately sized with no filler.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, return values do not need to be explained. The description covers the core purpose, accepted address formats, and the default chain. However, it omits guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools and does not explain how to select chain_id for Solana addresses, which would be important for complete cross-chain invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: wallet_address is a blockchain wallet address and chain_id is a CAIP-2 chain ID with a Base default of eip155:8453. It also adds useful meaning by noting EVM 0x and Solana base58 address support. It could specify valid chain_id values or how Solana chains should be represented, but the essential semantics are present.
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 states a specific verb and resource: checking a wallet trust score for crypto payments, and further clarifies it verifies against scam lists and transaction patterns. It also narrows scope by naming supported chain families (EVM and Solana). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_risk_score or get_trust_score, but the wallet-address focus makes the purpose clear.
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?
Usage context is implied by 'for crypto payments' and the supported address formats, suggesting this is the tool to verify a wallet before accepting payment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as check_agent, check_entity, get_risk_score, or get_trust_score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes: check_agent for AI agents, check_entity for full business checks, verify_wallet for crypto addresses. However, get_risk_score and get_trust_score overlap conceptually with check_entity's outputs, potentially causing confusion about when to use each. The descriptions help differentiate them as quick vs. full checks, but the boundaries could be clearer.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (check_agent, check_entity, get_risk_score, get_trust_score, verify_wallet). The verbs 'check', 'get', and 'verify' are semantically appropriate for their functions, and the snake_case style is uniformly applied throughout the set.
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for its trust intelligence domain. Each tool serves a specific function (agent verification, entity checks, risk/trust lookups, wallet verification), and none feel redundant or out of place. The count is appropriate for covering key aspects of trust assessment without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers major trust intelligence use cases: agent verification, business entity checks (full and quick variants), and crypto wallet verification. A minor gap is the lack of tools for updating or managing trust data (e.g., reporting false positives), but for a read-only API surface, it provides good coverage of core query operations.