Skip to main content
Glama
DeFadeLtd

DeFade

Official
by DeFadeLtd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Whale activity

get_whales
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify wallets holding at least 1% of token supply after excluding pools, lockers, treasuries, and custodial accounts. See balances, labels, activity, and a whale-risk verdict to assess dump risk.

Instructions

Wallets holding at least 1% of supply once pools, lockers, treasuries and custodial accounts are removed. Each row carries the balance, share of supply, any attribution label (known KOL, dev-linked stash, exchange), the 24-hour transaction count and recent buys and sells; the summary counts dangerous and active whales and gives a whale-risk verdict. One response, no pagination; cached for 15 minutes, so activity figures can lag by that much. A token with nothing above the threshold returns an empty list and largestHumanPct, so the empty state is explainable rather than silent. Use it after get_holders when the question is about who can dump and whether they are already dumping. Not for the full ranked holder list (get_holders), historically profitable wallets (get_smart_money), or the creator's own wallet (get_dev_tracker). Arguments: address and chain; one API unit on any chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain the token is deployed on: solana (default), ethereum, base, robinhood. Required for any 0x address, because the same contract address can exist on several EVM chains. Omit it for Solana. An unsupported value is rejected before any request is spent; EVM chains need a key on an All-Chains plan.solana
addressYesThe token's own contract address, exactly as an explorer shows it. Solana: the base58 mint, 32-44 characters (e.g. 6p6xgHyF7AeE6TZkSmFsko444wqoP15icUSqi2jfGiPN). EVM: 0x followed by 40 hex characters, case-insensitive (e.g. 0x6982508145454ce325ddbe47a25d4ec3d2311933). Never a pool, pair, wallet or deployer address — those come back as not found. Set `chain` to match the address: a 0x address alone cannot say which EVM chain it lives on, and a Solana mint sent with an EVM chain is rejected.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoThe address that was scanned (on get_token_scan, the full token metadata object instead).
whalesNoEach whale: address, balance, percentage of supply, attribution label (KOL, dev-linked, exchange), txCount24h, recent buys and sells.
summaryNototalWhales, totalWhalePct, dangerWhales, activeWhales, whaleRisk, whaleThreshold, largestHumanPct, protocol and Streamflow-lock totals.
poweredByNoAlways "DeFade.org".
timestampNoISO time the response was assembled.
terminalUsageNoWhich trading terminals the whale cohort trades through (Pro keys).
protocolAccountsNoPools, lockers, treasuries and custodial accounts held out of the whale list, named.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.2.3
    • changedOutput schema / properties / poweredBy / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / protocolAccounts / type
      Previous value: -"array"New value: +[
+  "array",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / summary / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / terminalUsage / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / timestamp / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / whales / type
      Previous value: -"array"New value: +[
+  "array",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 15-minute caching with possible lag, one-response/no-pagination behavior, a defined empty-state representation (empty list plus largestHumanPct), and pre-flight rejection of unsupported chains. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, row contents, summary output, caching, empty-state behavior, usage timing, exclusions, and arguments. The critical scoping and differentiation information is front-loaded before the more granular caching and parameter notes.

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 output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description supplies everything else needed for correct invocation: when to use it, what it is not for, what to expect in edge cases, how freshness behaves, and the address/chain pairing rule. There is no meaningful gap for an agent deciding or executing this call.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed format, validation, and chain-address relationship guidance, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds only minor param-related value ('one API unit on any chain') and otherwise treats parameters at a high level, which is acceptable but not additive enough to exceed the baseline.

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 names a precise resource ('wallets holding at least 1% of supply') and a specific analytical purpose (identifying who can dump and whether they are dumping). It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_holders, get_smart_money, and get_dev_tracker, so an agent can disambiguate it from its siblings without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit sequencing directive ('Use it after get_holders') and a clear decision condition ('when the question is about who can dump and whether they are already dumping'). It also names the tools NOT to use for adjacent questions, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools