Retrieve the top 300 wallets ranked by net received tokens to find high-performing copy trading targets. Results are cached for two minutes and require no authentication.
Get top 300 wallets ranked by net received. No auth. Cached 2 min.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds two facts the annotations do not carry: no authentication is required and results are cached for 2 minutes, which matters for freshness expectations. It stops short of clarifying what 'net received' is denominated in or whether the list is stable across calls.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the operational caveats (auth, cache) trailing. Nothing repeats the tool name or restates structured data.
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 no-argument read tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema the agent gets no sense of the return shape — identifier format, whether labels/PnL accompany each wallet, or list ordering ties. The undefined term 'custom wallets' also limits confidence in interpreting results.
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?
Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies the ranking window is fixed rather than caller-controlled.
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 300 wallets') plus the ranking metric ('ranked by net received'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_copy_trade_wallets or explain what makes these wallets 'custom'.
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 on when to use this versus get_copy_trade_wallets, get_copy_trade_gems, or get_top_traders, all of which sit in the same copy-trade/trader-discovery cluster. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.