boo-x402-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Token holder concentration

token_holders

Check token holder concentration to identify whale risk. Analyzes top holder percentages and holder count across EVM chains, Solana, and Robinhood Chain.

Instructions

Holder concentration for a token: top holder %, top-10 %, holder count. High concentration means a whale can dump on you. Works on EVM chains (eth, bnb, base), Solana, and Robinhood Chain.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 USDC per call (x402 on Base). Paid automatically from your configured wallet.

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "chain": "<chain>"
    },
    "name": "token_holders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes	Chain: eth, bnb, base, solana, rhchain.
`token`	Yes	Token contract address / Solana mint.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output metrics, supported chains, and cost. It could mention rate limits or error conditions, but the key behavioral traits are clear.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, risk, and chains. The paid tool info is separate but relevant. Minor fat could be trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (top holder %, top-10 %, holder count), supported chains, and cost. It is complete for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds marginal value (e.g., chain list matches schema) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's function: 'Holder concentration for a token: top holder %, top-10 %, holder count.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on concentration metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context (high concentration means whale risk) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use or compare to sibling tools like token_rugcheck or token_snapshot.

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