Skip to main content
Glama

AgentFeed

by io.github.seekdaseek
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum or Arc).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYesSPL token mint address (base58)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesthe get_token_holders payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_token_holders
toolYesthe tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: it is a paid call costing 0.02 USDC per invocation via x402 across five listed chains, which the agent must know before calling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the differentiation cue and the cost. The payment-chain enumeration is slightly listy but each element is decision-relevant, so there is little waste.

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 an output schema to explain the return shape and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish purpose, differentiation, and cost — all present. Minor omissions like rate limits or data freshness keep it from a 5.

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% and the single 'mint' parameter is documented as a base58 SPL token mint address. The description restates "Solana mint" but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource (top holders of an SPL token) plus concrete output content: per-account share and top-1/5/10 concentration for a Solana mint. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the neighboring /api/token-risk summary, so an agent can separate it from get_token_risk without opening the schema.

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?

"A deeper cut than the summary in /api/token-risk" gives a clear selection signal between this tool and its closest sibling. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming other alternatives (e.g. get_sol_holder_clusters), so it lands just under full marks.

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

All AgentFeed 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