check_wallet_activityGet recent transaction activity and behavior label (e.g. sniper, whale, fresh wallet) for a Solana wallet address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Solana wallet address |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies this as a read operation ('Get') and gives examples of behavior labels, but it leaves terms like 'recent' and 'activity' undefined, and does not mention any potential side effects, permissions, or data limitations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output without wasted words. Every phrase adds value: 'recent transaction activity', 'behavior label', and the label examples.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview of the output (activity and label) but does not specify what 'activity' includes or how 'recent' is defined. It also does not address how this tool fits with sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'address' parameter, describing it as 'Solana wallet address'. The description's phrase 'for a Solana wallet address' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('recent transaction activity and behavior label') for a Solana wallet address. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_token and get_trending_tokens by focusing on wallet-level activity and behavior labeling.
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?
The description implies usage when you need wallet activity or behavior labels, but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The context is clear, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a completely distinct resource: token analysis, wallet behavior, and trending lists. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the three.
Tools use a verb-first pattern (check_, get_), but the mix of 'check' and 'get' plus the longer 'check_wallet_activity' introduces slight inconsistency. Still, all names are readable and predictable.
Three tools is an ideal size for this focused server—covering core use cases without bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The server covers the primary needs for Solana token safety: token analysis, wallet profiling, and discovery. Minor gaps (e.g., historical trend data or comparison tools) are not essential for the apparent scope.