Holder & liquidity concentration analysis: top holder %, top-10 %, LP locked/burned %, holder list with contract/lock flags, and concentration risk warnings. Send { address, chain? }. Detect whale-dumps and rug risk before entering a position. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/snipe/holders]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | EVM chain, default base | |
| address | Yes | 0x token contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a paid POST endpoint costing $0.005, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description implies analysis without mutation, but lacks complete behavioral disclosure.
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 efficiently written with a clear structure: purpose, output details, input format, benefit, and billing info. It is not overly verbose, but could be slightly more concise by removing the billing info which might be better placed elsewhere.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return items (top holder %, LP locked/burned %, holder list, etc.). It explains the tool's utility in detecting rug risk. However, it lacks details on pagination or whether the data is real-time, but overall it's fairly complete for the given complexity.
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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters (chain and address). The description merely restates the schema's input format ('Send { address, chain? }') without adding new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.
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 it provides 'Holder & liquidity concentration analysis' with specific metrics (top holder %, top-10 %, LP locked/burned %, holder list, concentration risk warnings). The purpose is well-defined and distinguishes it from sibling tools like snipe_safety or snipe_honeypot.
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 tells the agent to 'Send { address, chain? }' and mentions using it to 'Detect whale-dumps and rug risk before entering a position', implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among 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.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.