get_rich_listThe 1,000 addresses holding the most DOGE, 100 a page, with how concentrated holdings are. Big holders are often exchanges.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_rich_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page 1 to 10 (default 1). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: the fixed 1,000-address universe, a 100-rows-per-page chunking, and that a concentration measure comes back with the list.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and size, followed by the return-content note. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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 single-param, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the universe size, pagination granularity and a result-field hint. Only the exact response shape is left unspecified, which is acceptable here.
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% and the page parameter is documented with its 1-10 range, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying page size to 100 rows and the list to 1,000 addresses, explaining why the page ceiling is 10.
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?
States a specific resource and scope: the top 1,000 DOGE-holding addresses plus a concentration metric. An agent can tell this apart from get_address or get_chart without opening the schema, though the description never explicitly names a sibling it is not.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. 'Big holders are often exchanges' is interpretive context about the data, not guidance on selecting this tool over its siblings.
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.