Skip to main content
Glama

Nansen

by io.github.hurcanNansen

Searching onchain data

general_search

General search tool. This is your FIRST entry point to look up for possible tokens, entities, and addresses related to a query.

Do NOT use this tool for prediction markets. For Polymarket names, topics, event slugs, or URLs, use prediction_market_lookup instead.

Nansen MCP does not support NFTs, however check using this tool if the query relates to a token. Regular tokens and NFTs can have the same name.

This tool allows you to:

  • Check if a (fungible) token exists by name, symbol, or contract address

  • Search information about a token

    • Current price in USD

    • Trading volume

    • Contract address and chain information

    • Market cap and supply data when available

  • Search information about an entity

  • Find the address behind a Nansen label (public figure, fund, exchange wallet)

  • Find Nansen labels of an address (EOA) or resolve a domain (.eth, .sol)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoOptional chain filter to narrow down token results to specific blockchain. If not further specified, leave it as None. If a chain is specified, ALWAYS use this parameter instead of adding chain name to the query string. Valid values: "ethereum", "solana", "base", "bnb", "polygon", "arbitrum", "avalanche", "optimism", etc.
queryYesThe search term - token symbol, name, or address. DO NOT include chain name here!
max_resultsNoMaximum number of results (default: 25, max: 25)
result_typeNoType filter - "token", "entity", "wallet", "eoa", or "any"any

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / result_type / description
      Previous value: -"Type filter - \"token\", \"entity\", \"eoa\", or \"any\""New value: +"Type filter - \"token\", \"entity\", \"wallet\", \"eoa\", or \"any\""
    • changedInput schema / properties / result_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "token",
-  "entity",
-  "eoa",
-  "any"
-]New value: +[
+  "token",
+  "entity",
+  "wallet",
+  "eoa",
+  "any"
+]
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain / description
      Added value: +"Optional chain filter to narrow down token results to specific blockchain. If not further specified, leave it as None. If a chain is specified, ALWAYS use this parameter instead of adding chain name to the query string.\n   Valid values: \"ethereum\", \"solana\", \"base\", \"bnb\", \"polygon\", \"arbitrum\",\n   \"avalanche\", \"optimism\", etc."
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_results / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of results (default: 25, max: 25)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Added value: +"The search term - token symbol, name, or address. DO NOT include chain name here!"
    • addedInput schema / properties / result_type / description
      Added value: +"Type filter - \"token\", \"entity\", \"eoa\", or \"any\""
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating the tool is a search entry point, listing what kinds of results it can return (price, volume, labels, domains), and disclosing the NFT limitation. It does not explicitly mention read-only safety or potential result variability, but 'search' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, an explicit exclusion, a necessary NFT caveat, and a scannable bullet list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important guidance ('FIRST entry point') is front-loaded. It is moderately long but not bloated.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the remaining essential context: general purpose, exclusions, alternatives, and supported query types. An agent has enough information to decide when to call this tool and roughly what to expect from it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic color by explaining that the query can be a token symbol, name, contract address, entity, label, or domain, but it does not go beyond the schema for chain, max_results, or result_type. It neither compensates heavily nor harms parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'General search tool' for looking up tokens, entities, and addresses. It clearly establishes its role as the 'FIRST entry point' and explicitly excludes prediction markets, which distinguishes it from the prediction_market_* siblings. The capability list makes the scope concrete.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when not to use the tool ('Do NOT use this tool for prediction markets') and names the alternative ('use prediction_market_lookup instead'). It also frames itself as the first entry point and gives guidance on token-vs-NFT queries, so an agent knows when to start here versus going elsewhere.

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

All Nansen toolsInspect
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly defined purpose, and overlapping tools (e.g., token_flows vs token_recent_flows_summary, nansen_score_top_tokens vs token_discovery_screener) include explicit guidance on when to use them. Even with similar names like prediction_market_trades and prediction_market_address_trades, the descriptions and parameters make the distinction unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a domain_prefix_noun pattern (address_, token_, prediction_market_), making them predictable within families. However, outliers like general_search, growth_chain_rank, hyperliquid_leaderboard, and transaction_lookup break the pattern, and some names are long or inconsistently formatted (e.g., smart_traders_and_funds_perp_trades vs smart_traders_and_funds_token_balances).

Tool Count3/5

With 38 tools, the server is far above the typical 3-15 range, making it heavy for agents to navigate. However, Nansen is a broad analytics platform covering wallets, tokens, prediction markets, and smart money activity, so the high count is justifiable as each tool serves a distinct function.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage across token analysis (ohlcv, trading, holders, flows, PnL, technicals), wallet analysis (portfolio, transactions, counterparties), prediction markets (lookup, orderbook, trades, PnL), and discovery. The only obvious omission is NFT support, but it is explicitly documented as out of scope, so no critical dead ends exist.

Resources