bca-mcp

get_token_holders

Retrieve top token holders with balance and percentage of supply for EVM chains. Analyze token concentration and risk.

Instructions

Top token holders with balance and %-supply. EVM-only, Pro tier. Use for concentration/risk analysis.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contract": "<contract>"
    },
    "name": "get_token_holders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contract`	Yes	Token contract address (EVM).
`chain`	No	EVM chain only.	ethereum
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output includes balance and percentage of supply, but lacks details on ordering, pagination, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. The Pro tier mention hints at access restrictions but is insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, constraints, and use case. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention return format, pagination, or sorting order, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 describes 2 out of 3 parameters (contract and chain) adequately. The description adds no new information about parameters; it merely repeats the EVM constraint. The 'limit' parameter lacks a description in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: retrieving top token holders with balance and percentage of supply. It also distinguishes from siblings by stating 'EVM-only, Pro tier' and explicitly mentions the use case for concentration/risk analysis, which sets it apart from other tools in the list that deal with prices, sentiment, etc.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for concentration/risk analysis and only on EVM chains with Pro tier access. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the specificity about EVM-only and Pro tier effectively guides usage.

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

Deploy Server