Teardrop

Get Wallet Approvals

get_wallet_approvals

Read-only

Inspect a wallet's current ERC-20 token authorization exposure on one DeBank-supported chain. Returns discovered spenders, USD exposure, protocol attribution, and hacked or abandoned protocol flags. This is broader than the curated block-accurate get_token_approvals tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain_id`	Yes	DeBank chain identifier, for example eth, arb, or base
`wallet_address`	Yes	EVM wallet address (0x-prefixed)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`note`	No	DeBank authorization exposure is analytics data for one chain and may be stale. It does not inspect NFT approvals or off-chain Permit2 sub-permits.
`errors`	No
`chain_id`	Yes
`approvals`	No
`provenance`	Yes
`data_complete`	Yes
`wallet_address`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context about the return contents (spenders, USD exposure, protocol attribution, and hacked/abandoned flags) and the broader scope relative to the sibling. No destructive behavior is implied, and no contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return highlights, then a comparative pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values are documented. The description covers what the tool does, its chain scope, the parameters (implicitly), the type of data returned, and its relationship to a key sibling. This is complete for an agent to select and call the tool.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond tying 'wallet' and 'chain' to the context. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool inspects a wallet's ERC-20 token authorization exposure on a specific chain, with a specific verb ('inspect') and resource. It also immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_token_approvals by noting it is broader, so an agent can differentiate.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear alternative by comparing to get_token_approvals and characterizing it as 'curated block-accurate', implying when the narrower tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when' or 'do not use when', leaving some inference to the agent.

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

All Teardrop tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct data sources, but several near-duplicates exist: get_token_approvals/get_wallet_approvals, get_defi_positions/get_wallet_positions, and get_wallet_portfolio/get_eth_balance. The descriptions do cross-reference and clarify the differences, so an agent can disambiguate with effort, but names alone are not enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant get_<noun> pattern is clear and nearly all names use lowercase snake_case with verb-first conventions. A few tools like calculate, record_predictions, http_fetch, and web_search break the get_ pattern, but the overall style remains predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a single server, even for a broad DeFi/onchain analytics domain. The count is inflated by generic utilities such as calculate, count_text_stats, web_search, and http_fetch, plus multiple overlapping data-retrieval endpoints, making the surface hard to scan.

Completeness4/5

The set covers an unusually wide range of domain operations: prices, balances, portfolio/positions, approvals, yields, TVL, DEX quotes/volume, transactions, blocks, gas, ENS, contract reads, and risk assessments. It is view-only by design, so missing write/transaction tools is acceptable; minor gaps like address-based token pricing or transaction simulation are workaround-able.

Resources

Need Help?