get_token_holders
Token holder distribution analysis from DEX data. $0.02.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes |
CryptoBoss
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions a $0.02 cost. No disclosure of side effects, permissions, rate limits, data scope, or update frequency. A mutation-safe hint is absent, and the cost hint is the only behavioral clue.
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?
Extremely concise at one sentence plus a cost note. Front-loaded with purpose and cost. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, and there is no structured presentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain input requirements, return format, or behavioral traits, making the tool hard to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description offers no explanation of the required parameters 'address' and 'api_key'. No format hints, possible values, or purpose beyond the tool name.
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 'Token holder distribution analysis from DEX data', specifying the verb (analysis, implied retrieval) and resource (token holder distribution from DEX data). It distinguishes from siblings like get_coin or get_price by focusing on holder distribution and DEX source.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparative advice against siblings like get_coin or get_summary.
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.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. Minor overlaps exist (e.g., analyze_contract and get_meme_analyze both assess risk, but the former focuses on liquidity/honeypot while the latter is specifically for meme tokens), and tools like get_coin and get_price provide similar data but are differentiated by scope (detailed info vs real-time price). Overall, an agent can generally distinguish between them.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming convention is mostly verb_noun (e.g., analyze_contract, get_price, delete_alert), but there are inconsistencies such as 'register' (imperative verb alone) and 'trending_categories' (adjective_noun without verb). The mix of 'get_' prefix and bare verbs reduces consistency, but the pattern is still readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 48 tools, the server is very heavy. While it aims to be a comprehensive crypto platform, this quantity can overwhelm an agent with too many options, making selection difficult and increasing latency. A more focused subset (e.g., 15-25) would be more appropriate for an MCP server.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers an extensive range of crypto data and analysis: market overview, DeFi, memes, NFTs? (via meme scanning), portfolio, alerts, arbitrage, liquidations, whale tracking, social sentiment, network health, gas, and even agent management. It provides near-complete CRUD lifecycle for most data types (read, search, compare, analyze), leaving no obvious dead ends for a data-gathering agent.