getTopRunesByVolumeGet Bitcoin runes ranked by 24h trading volume. Use this to find the most actively traded runes. Returns price, market cap, 24h volume, and price change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of runes to return (max 50) | |
| minVolume | No | Filter for runes with 24h volume above this value in USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral detail about ranking criteria ('ranked by 24h trading volume') and output content ('Returns price, market cap, 24h volume, and price change'), which goes beyond the structured 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes value. There is no redundancy or 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?
For a simple read-only ranking tool with two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and there is no output schema requiring additional explanation.
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 100%, so both parameters (limit, minVolume) are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, though it does relate output fields to the volume concept. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the tool's function: 'Get Bitcoin runes ranked by 24h trading volume.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on volume distinguishes it from sibling tools like getTopRunesByMarketCap and getRuneMarketInfo.
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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use this to find the most actively traded runes.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among volume-focused 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.
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.