Retrieve the top holders of a BRC-20 token by ticker, returning addresses and balances sorted by held amount. Use pagination to inspect holder distribution.
Get top holders of a BRC-20 token. Returns addresses and balances sorted by amount held.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| ticker | Yes | BRC-20 token ticker (e.g., ordi, sats) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the result ordering ('sorted by amount held'), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, whether the list is cached/live, or what happens when a ticker is unknown.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.
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?
For a simple no-annotation read tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers both what it fetches and what comes back. It is nearly sufficient, lacking only edge-case and pagination behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so ticker, limit, and offset are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format detail (e.g., case sensitivity of ticker) or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get top holders of a BRC-20 token', which clearly separates it from adjacent siblings like get_rune_holders and get_brc20_balances. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_brc20_balances when the agent wants one address's holdings rather than the top-holder leaderboard. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.