wallet-tracker

get_token_stats

Read-only

Who is trading a token: how many KOLs, smart money wallets and whales hold it,

total bought and sold, buying pressure, first and latest entry, and the

individual traders with their positions. The main tool for "is anyone notable

in this token".



Note that market cap in USD comes back empty on this endpoint even for Solana;

get_token_holders reports it.



blockchain: solana, bnb, base, eth or rh

mint: token mint address on Solana, contract address on the EVM chains

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mint`	Yes	Token address: the mint on Solana, the contract address on the EVM chains.
`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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: the market cap endpoint returns empty, blockchain-specific wallet restrictions, and the 'open world' nature of merging all wallet types. No contradictions.

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?

The description is well-structured: first paragraph states purpose and output, second provides a critical caveat, third details parameters. It is concise with no redundant sentences, though slightly long.

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 (multiple blockchains, wallet types, output with schema), the description covers all necessary information: purpose, caveats, parameter details, and blockchain-specific behavior. The output schema exists, so return values are implicitly covered.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: explains blockchain-specific wallet type availability (e.g., 'solana has kol, smart and whale wallets; bnb, base and rh have kol and smart') and clarifies wallet_type behavior when omitted.

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 purpose: identifying notable traders (KOLs, smart money, whales) holding a token, with details on bought/sold, buying pressure, and individual positions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as 'the main tool for is anyone notable in this token' and explicitly referencing get_token_holders for market cap.

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 provides usage context: when not to use it (market cap is empty, use get_token_holders instead) and blockchain-specific wallet type availability. It lacks explicit when-to-use directives but clearly implies its niche.

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?