Holder distribution & concentration risk for an XRPL token: holder count, top-1 and top-10 share of circulating supply, AMM pool excluded from whale math. Flags single-wallet dump risk. Best for newer tokens (large tokens report 'unknown_large' honestly rather than guessing). Price: $0.008 USDC. Missing something? Call submit_feedback (free) to request it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issuer | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: AMM pools are excluded from whale math, and the tool flags single-wallet dump risk. It also honestly reports 'unknown_large' for large tokens. It does not state if the tool is read-only, but the context implies it is a query tool.
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 concise, with front-loaded key purpose and metrics. Every sentence adds value—purpose, scope, behavior, pricing, and feedback suggestion. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description mentions the output contains holder count, shares, and risk flags, but does not specify the exact response structure or whether pagination exists. Given no output schema, some return value details would improve completeness, but the core purpose is adequately covered.
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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. While it mentions 'issuer' and 'currency' implicitly as XRPL token identifiers, it does not explicitly define acceptable formats (e.g., issuer address, currency code) or provide examples. This lack of specificity could confuse an AI agent unfamiliar with XRPL.
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 returns holder distribution and concentration risk for an XRPL token, specifying metrics like holder count, top-1 and top-10 share, and AMM pool exclusion. It also distinguishes behavior for new vs. large tokens, making the purpose very specific and actionable.
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 indicates the tool is 'Best for newer tokens' and explains that for large tokens it reports 'unknown_large' honestly, providing guidance on when it's most useful. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like check_xrpl_token or resolve_asset, though the context is clear.
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 distinct resource and action: address checks, token checks, price analysis, transaction simulation, path finding, wallet history, pool discovery, attestation, and monitoring all have clear boundaries. While some tools share domain (e.g., check_xrpl_token vs resolve_asset), their purposes are clearly differentiated in descriptions.
Nearly all tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_*, get_*, verify_*, analyze_*, explore_*, find_*, quote_*, watch_*, submit_*). The only slight deviation is 'token_holders', a noun phrase, but it is still concise and follows the same lowercase snake_case style, so it does not create confusion.
20 tools is on the heavier side of the ideal range, but the server's scope—cross-chain security, token analysis, monitoring, attestation, and market data—justifies this breadth. Each tool covers a distinct sub-domain, so the count is reasonable though slightly above the typical 3-15 sweet spot.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: token discovery, safety, identity, price, holders, monitoring, address/issuer risk, transaction simulation, route finding, wallet activity, endpoint trust, and attestation. There are no obvious dead ends; users can discover tokens, verify them, track them, and receive alerts—a full lifecycle for crypto risk assessment.
