Analyze holder concentration and coordinated wallet clusters for a Base token. Cost: $0.01 USDC via x402. COMING SOON – not accepting payments yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Token contract address on Base (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC via x402) and availability (COMING SOON – not accepting payments yet), which are valuable behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or describe the return format, but the core constraints are present.
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 plus a brief cost statement, all front-loaded and purposeful. No unnecessary words; every element contributes to understanding the tool.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: purpose, cost, and unavailability. The 'coming soon' status is critical for an agent to avoid invoking it. The lack of output details is acceptable given the tool is not yet active.
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 single parameter 'address', which already includes a description. The tool description adds no further semantics about the parameter beyond mentioning 'Base token', already captured in the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Analyze' and clearly identifies the resource: 'holder concentration and coordinated wallet clusters for a Base token'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_token_safety and get_market_data, which focus on safety and market data respectively.
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 implies usage: if you need to analyze holder concentration, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the Base token context.
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 purpose: market data, token safety, and holder cluster analysis. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for agents to select the correct tool.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case (analyze_, check_, get_). This creates a predictable naming convention.
With only 3 tools, the server is on the lower end of typical counts, but each tool is distinct and serves a specific financial analysis function. The count is slightly thin but not inappropriate.
The server only provides three functions, with two not yet live. Significant gaps exist, such as no tool for token price, trading history, or portfolio management, making the surface incomplete for comprehensive finance analytics.