Mindjack

inspect_token

Read-only

Assess memecoin risk by analyzing a Solana token's holder structure, sniper and insider splits, connected-group topology, and tracked-trader activity.

Instructions

[$0.005] Who is involved: top holders and supply, the sniper / fresh-wallet / insider / early-buyer split, connected-group topology, tracked-trader activity. Counts and structure only: token_wallets names them, token_graph draws the edges, token_web follows them to earlier launches.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mint": "6acH1iae44zL4haWNNCaqcTqS2Q7KNYsWErxCoLW9u9P"
    },
    "name": "inspect_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mint`	Yes	Solana token mint, base58.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mint`	No	Solana token mint address (base58).
`_meta`	No
`groups`	No
`activity`	No	transactions analysed and fee cost.
`top_holders`	No	rank, wallet, supply_pct, is_whale, is_notable.
`holder_wealth`	No	top-50 SOL distribution; a median near zero is a launch distributed to nobody.
`wallet_classes`	No	snipers, insiders, fresh_wallets, early_buyers.
`tracked_traders`	No	Activity from traders we follow by name.
`trading_patterns`	No	scalp score and wash-trading share.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.4Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a cost of $0.005 per call. It also states 'Counts and structure only', which limits the output to aggregates. This transparency about scope and pricing goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact at about 50 words and front-loads the cost and key topics. It efficiently contrasts with sibling tools in the second sentence. However, the phrasing 'Who is involved:' is a fragment that could be clearer, but overall it's concise and avoids redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, scope, pricing, and differentiates from alternatives. For a tool with one parameter and moderate complexity, this is adequate. It would benefit from an explicit statement of output, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 single parameter 'mint' is fully described in the schema as 'Solana token mint, base58.', which is clear. The description doesn't add additional semantic context about how the mint is used, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. There's no need for the description to elaborate further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states that the tool provides 'top holders and supply' and a 'sniper / fresh-wallet / insider / early-buyer split', indicating it analyzes token holder categories. It explicitly says 'Counts and structure only', which clarifies the scope. It also references sibling tools (token_wallets, token_graph, token_web) to differentiate, though it lacks a clear verb like 'retrieve'.

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 notes that 'token_wallets names them, token_graph draws the edges, token_web follows them to earlier launches', which implicitly tells the agent to use this tool for aggregate counts and structures only. It provides exclusions by stating what this tool does not do (name individuals, draw edges, trace launch history). However, it doesn't explicitly state a condition like 'use this when you need summary statistics', but the contrast with siblings is sufficient.

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