AgentFeed

Top token holders

get_token_holders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Top holders of any SPL token: per-account share with top-1, top-5 and top-10 concentration for a Solana mint. A deeper cut than the summary in /api/token-risk. Costs 0.02 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana or Base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mint`	Yes	SPL token mint address (base58)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	the get_token_holders payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_token_holders
`tool`	Yes	the tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "the get_token_holders payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_token_holders",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "const": "get_token_holders",
+      "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tool",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds material non-obvious context: the cost of 0.02 USDC per call and the x402 payment mechanism on Solana or Base. It also clarifies the output granularity, going beyond what the annotations convey.

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 deliver the resource, output details, comparison to a sibling tool, and pricing with zero filler. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With only one fully documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the main operational detail an agent needs is cost, which is included. The tool is also situated relative to get_token_risk, leaving no material gap for a calling agent.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single 'mint' parameter as an SPL token mint address in base58. The description repeats the Solana/SPL context but does not add new format, validation, or example details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the resource (SPL token mint), the operation (retrieve top holders), and the specific outputs (per-account share and top-1/5/10 concentration). It also distinguishes the tool from get_token_risk, so an agent can tell them apart.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'A deeper cut than the summary in /api/token-risk' gives an explicit comparative signal that this tool is the more granular option for holder concentration. It does not enumerate exhaustive when-not-to-use conditions or other sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough for routing a concentration-focused request.

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

All AgentFeed tools Inspect

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.