coin-scout

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get token holders

get_token_holders

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all token accounts for a Solana mint with owner and balance, paginated and filterable by minimum amount. Use it to analyze full holder distribution beyond top-20 results.

Instructions

Paginated list of every token account for a mint with owner and balance. Use for holder-distribution work beyond the top-20 that analyze_token returns.

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": {
      "mint": "<mint>"
    },
    "name": "get_token_holders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mint`	Yes	Base58 Solana address
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`minAmountRaw`	No	Drop accounts below this raw (undecimalised) amount

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare safe read semantics (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds that results are paginated and that each entry carries owner and balance. It does not address auth requirements, rate limits, or how far back the enumeration goes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool routing hint.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields (owner, balance) and the pagination model. It is close to complete for a 4-param read tool, though cursor mechanics remain unexplained.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: mint and minAmountRaw are documented in the schema, but limit and cursor are bare. The description's 'paginated' wording gestures at the cursor/limit pair but adds no semantics for page size, ordering, or how the cursor is obtained. Baseline 3 for partially-covered params.

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?

States a specific verb, resource and scope — 'paginated list of every token account for a mint with owner and balance' — and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling analyze_token (top-20 only). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either 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?

Names the alternative tool (analyze_token) and the exact condition that selects this one instead: holder-distribution work beyond the top-20. Nothing is left to inference about when to reach for this tool.

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