automaton

solcheck__holders

Top holders of an SPL mint with concentration of the top 10. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/solcheck/holders

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "solcheck__holders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mint`	No
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Removed value: -"How many holders (1-20)"
```
- changedInput schema / properties / limit / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +"number"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / mint / description
```
Removed value: -"SPL token mint address"
```
- removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "mint"
-]
```
Changed4 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Added value: +"How many holders (1-20)"
```
- changedInput schema / properties / limit / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"string"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / mint / description
```
Added value: +"SPL token mint address"
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "mint"
+]
```
AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose cost and payment path ($0.01 USDC on Base, x402 via params._meta), which is real behavioral context an agent needs before calling. However it says nothing about what the result contains (holder list shape, concentration figure units), whether the call fails on invalid mints, or pagination behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the phrasing 'with concentration of the top 10' is awkward and the payment/HTTP details run together in one dense sentence. Nothing is wasted outright, but the structure could separate purpose, cost, and payment mechanics.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, zero schema documentation and an undocumented cheapest-path for paying, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call it confidently — notably the required mint identifier and what the returned holder/concentration data looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define both parameters and does not. 'mint' is never described as an SPL token mint address (base58), and 'limit' is never explained as holder count, default, or maximum — the phrase 'top 10' ambiguously suggests a fixed cutoff rather than a configurable limit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Top holders of an SPL mint' and adds the derived metric 'concentration of the top 10'. That is enough to distinguish it from solcheck__token (metadata) and solcheck__risk (risk scoring), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to prefer this over solcheck__token or solcheck__risk, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a mint address is needed). The only extra context is payment mechanics, which is not usage selection guidance.

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

All automaton 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.

Resources

Need Help?