SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Holder concentration for an EVM token: share of supply held

agent_intel_holder_cluster_analyzer

Read-only

Holder concentration for an EVM token (Ethereum, BSC, Base, Arbitrum, Polygon): share of supply held by the top 1, top 3 and top 10 holders, total holder count, and how much of the top 10 are contracts. GoPlus gives only the top 10 holders, so the top-20 view and funding-source clustering are NOT provided. Related tools on this server, for a different need: agent_intel_mev_sandwich_risk_analyzer when you need Theoretical sandwich-attack profit for a swap of a given. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_holder_cluster_analyzer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	ethereum, bsc, base, arbitrum or polygon (default ethereum)
`address`	Yes	Token contract address 0x... (40 hex characters)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`chain`	No
`source`	No
`symbol`	No
`address`	No
`verdict`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`topHolders`	No
`totalHolders`	No
`concentration`	No
`holdersReturned`	No
`contractHoldersInTop10`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond that: the upstream data limitation (GoPlus caps at the top 10), the exact price ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the payment rails (x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and the fact that failed calls are not charged. The only gap is that it doesn't say whether results are cached or how fresh the holder snapshot is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The metric list is front-loaded and efficient, and the GoPlus limitation is a valuable early caveat. However, the sibling cross-reference sentence is awkwardly constructed and partially truncated ('a swap of a given'), which costs clarity, and the pricing sentence, while useful, is dense with parenthetical detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining agent-relevant facts: scope, chain support, data ceiling, and payment terms. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool; only data freshness/latency is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both `chain` and `address` documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the supported chain list (Ethereum, BSC, Base, Arbitrum, Polygon) which mildly reinforces the `chain` parameter but adds no format or default semantics beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact resource (holder concentration for an EVM token) and enumerates the returned metrics: top-1/top-3/top-10 share of supply, total holder count, and contract share within the top 10. It also scopes the chains and explicitly rules out the top-20 view and funding-source clustering, so an agent can distinguish it from neighbouring token-analysis tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a negative boundary (no top-20, no clustering, because GoPlus only returns the top 10) which is genuinely useful, but the positive routing is weak: the only alternative named is agent_intel_mev_sandwich_risk_analyzer, introduced with the vague phrase 'for a different need' and a garbled clause ('profit for a swap of a given'). Closer siblings such as token_composite_safety_score, honeypot_trap_detector or bundle_sniper_detector are not mentioned, so when-to-use versus them is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?