Skip to main content
Glama

DeFade — Multi-Chain Memecoin Analyzer

Launch-window bundles

get_launch_bundles
Read-onlyIdempotent

Bundle detection for one token: coordinated buys in the launch window plus delayed sweeps, accounted on peak net exposure rather than raw buy count, so wallets that bought and flipped are not counted as holders. Heavy bundling that is still held is one of the strongest rug predictors. Use it for any "was this launch bundled" question. Not for lone fast buyers with no coordination (get_launch_snipers), clusters that formed after launch (get_lookalike_clusters), or the creator's own selling (get_dev_tracker). Arguments: address and chain; one API unit on any chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain the token is deployed on: solana (default), ethereum, base, robinhood. Required for any 0x address, because the same contract address can exist on several EVM chains. Omit it for Solana. An unsupported value is rejected before any request is spent; EVM chains need a key on an All-Chains plan.solana
addressYesThe token's own contract address, exactly as an explorer shows it. Solana: the base58 mint, 32-44 characters (e.g. 6p6xgHyF7AeE6TZkSmFsko444wqoP15icUSqi2jfGiPN). EVM: 0x followed by 40 hex characters, case-insensitive (e.g. 0x6982508145454ce325ddbe47a25d4ec3d2311933). Never a pool, pair, wallet or deployer address — those come back as not found. Set `chain` to match the address: a 0x address alone cannot say which EVM chain it lives on, and a Solana mint sent with an EVM chain is rejected.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoThe address that was scanned (on get_token_scan, the full token metadata object instead).
bundlesNoEach bundle: its wallets, what they spent, what they still hold, how they were funded.
summaryNoTotals across detected bundles, accounted on peak net exposure.
poweredByNoAlways "DeFade.org".
timestampNoISO time the response was assembled.
hiddenBundleCountNoBundles the shallow detector does not see.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / bundles / type
      Previous value: -"array"New value: +[
      +  "array",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / hiddenBundleCount / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
      +  "number",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / poweredBy / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / summary / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
      +  "object",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / timestamp / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing cost (one API unit), that invalid chain values are rejected before spending a request, and that non-token addresses (pools, pairs, wallets) return not found. This exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds value. It uses semicolons and colons to pack conditions, examples, and exclusions efficiently. No redundant filler or vague marketing language.

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?

Covers what the tool does, how it computes the metric, when to use it, when not to use it, and cost/error behavior. Since an output schema exists, no return-value explanation is needed. 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?

The schema descriptions already cover chain enum, default, EVM ambiguity, Solana mint format, 0x format, and exclusions. The description largely restates this same information without adding new parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3.

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?

Clearly states a specific action (detect bundle activity) with a precise resource (one token) and a defining accounting method (peak net exposure). Explicitly distinguishes itself from three sibling tools by naming them and describing what they do instead.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit use cases ('was this launch bundled' questions) and explicit non-use cases (snipers, lookalike clusters, dev selling), naming the alternative sibling tools. Also gives parameter-level guidance on when to omit chain and how address format determines validity.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources