getTopBRC20ByVolumeGet BRC-20 tokens ranked by 24h trading volume. Use this to find the most actively traded BRC-20 tokens. Returns price, market cap, 24h volume, and price change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of tokens to return (max 50) | |
| minVolume | No | Filter for tokens with 24h volume above this value in USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the list of returned fields (price, market cap, 24h volume, price change), which is useful given no output schema. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering or data source nuances, so it only partially goes beyond the annotations.
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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the operation, giving the use case, and listing return fields. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.
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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential points: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. Minor gaps like price currency or exact sort direction are not glaring issues given the 'ranked' qualifier and the schema-provided defaults.
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 provides full descriptions for both parameters ('limit' and 'minVolume'), including defaults and bounds. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.
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 starts with 'Get BRC-20 tokens ranked by 24h trading volume', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like getTopBRC20ByMarketCap by the ranking criterion (volume vs. market cap), and the second sentence reinforces the intended use case.
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 phrase 'Use this to find the most actively traded BRC-20 tokens' provides a clear context for when to invoke this tool. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the 'by volume' designation and the sibling names imply the differentiation, which is sufficient for a clear directive.
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.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.