Retrieve top token holders for one or more tokens by providing token addresses and network IDs, enabling analysis of holder distribution and concentration.
Top holders for a list of tokens
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokens | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description only states 'Top holders for a list of tokens.' It does not disclose whether this is a read-only query, how results are ordered, whether pagination or limits apply, or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase with no redundant filler. It is front-loaded with the main concept, though the brevity comes at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are many fomo sibling tools, the description fails to provide any context about output semantics, token address formats, supported networks, or how it relates to get_balances, get_holders, or other similar tools. The absence of annotations and output schema makes the description inadequately contextual.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description says 'list of tokens,' which roughly maps to the 'tokens' parameter, but it does not explain the nested tokenAddress and networkId properties that the schema requires. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate but did not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Top holders for a list of tokens' identifies the resource (top holders) and the input (a list of tokens), but it lacks a verb and does not differentiate this tool from other holder-related siblings like fomo_dev_holdings and fomo_friends_holdings. The purpose is somewhat clear but not precisely specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative holder or token analysis tools. It does not specify intended scenarios, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.