Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Scrapling x402 Data Store

by io.github.bnth09productions-maker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Solana token holder concentration ($0.001)

token_holders
Read-only

PAID $0.001 USDC. Solana token holder concentration: top-10 share of supply, largest holder share, exchange-labelled holders and a low / medium / high verdict with reasons. Pass the mint as address.

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": "token_holders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNo
addressYesSolana token mint
api_keyNoOptional prepaid key (sk_scrapling_...) or catalog pass token (sdp_..., from pass_day/pass_month). Otherwise pay per call with x402 via _meta['x402/payment'].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / api_key / description
      Previous value: -"Optional prepaid key (sk_scrapling_...). Otherwise pay per call with x402 via _meta['x402/payment']."New value: +"Optional prepaid key (sk_scrapling_...) or catalog pass token (sdp_..., from pass_day/pass_month). Otherwise pay per call with x402 via _meta['x402/payment']."
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the commercially important fact that the call is paid ($0.001 USDC) and previews the verdict output shape. It does not clarify behaviour around failed payment, caching, or what happens when holder labels are unavailable.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no filler: the payment notice and the returned metrics are front-loaded ahead of the single input instruction. Nothing is repeated and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields. Given one required parameter and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it. A note on how the verdict's thresholds work or latency would push this higher, but nothing essential is missing.

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 67%, with address and api_key both documented in the schema itself. 'Pass the mint as address' restates the schema description 'Solana token mint' rather than adding precision (e.g. base58 format, wrapped SOL handling). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the weight.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific resource (Solana token holder concentration) and enumerates exactly what the result contains — top-10 share, largest holder share, exchange-labelled holders, and a low/medium/high verdict. That is far more specific than the name alone. It stops short of naming the overlapping siblings (token_verdict, lookup_token_risk, whale_token), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only directive is 'Pass the mint as address', which is input mechanics, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over token_verdict or lookup_token_risk, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions despite several adjacent token-analysis siblings in the catalog.

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

All Scrapling x402 Data Store toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources