wallet-tracker

get_token_holders

Read-only

The tracked wallets holding a token, sorted by balance, with market cap and

price in USD on Solana. Use when the user asks who is still holding, rather

than who ever traded it.



blockchain: solana, bnb, base, eth or rh

mint: token address

wallet_type: restrict to kol, smart or whale. Omit to merge all types.

limit: how many holders (default 25)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mint`	Yes	Token address: the mint on Solana, the contract address on the EVM chains.
`limit`	No	How many entries to return. Keep it small: large results are trimmed to fit the context window anyway.
`blockchain`	Yes	Blockchain. One of: solana, bnb, base, eth, rh. solana has kol, smart and whale wallets; bnb, base and rh have kol and smart; eth has kol only. rh is Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum L2.
`wallet_type`	No	Restrict to one wallet type: kol, smart or whale. Leave empty to merge all types the chain has.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description provides rich behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), including sorting by balance, inclusion of market cap and price, and chain-specific wallet type availability. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, blockchain-specific behavior) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential context: purpose, usage cues, parameter details, and return data characteristics.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining blockchain values, chain-specific wallet types, default limit, and the fact that large results are trimmed. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool's function: retrieving tracked wallets holding a token, sorted by balance, with market cap and price. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Use when the user asks who is still holding, rather than who ever traded it.'

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool (who is still holding) versus when not (trade history). While it doesn't name specific alternative tools, the guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to differentiate.

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

All wallet-tracker tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function—comparing tokens vs. wallets, detecting bundles, retrieving historical vs. current signals, etc. Overlap is minimal, and descriptions clearly differentiate similar-sounding tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_, detect_, get_, list_, lookup_), all in snake_case, making it easy to predict and understand the purpose of each tool.

Tool Count4/5

With 21 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, but the breadth of functionality—covering wallet stats, tokens, signals, bundles, and comparisons across multiple blockchains—warrants the number. No tool feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers essentially all aspects of wallet tracking: browsing, per-wallet stats/history/holdings/connections, token-level analysis, signals, bundles, leaderboards, and activity metrics. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?