Retrieve a funding-network overview for a Solana address, showing bundled or created tokens with holder percentages and risk levels to assess network exposure.
Funding-network overview: tokens bundled or created by a wallet network, with holder percentages and risk levels.
Price: $0.01 (paid in USDC on Solana via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| networkAddress | Yes | Top funding-network address (base58) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only overview and adds a concrete behavioral trait: the tool costs $0.01, payable in USDC on Solana via x402. However, it does not mention caveats like rate limits, data freshness, failure modes, or authorization requirements.
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?
Two short sentences: the first conveys the tool's purpose and output, the second states the essential billing detail. No filler words or redundant restatements of the tool name.
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 single-parameter overview tool, the description covers the output areas, the parameter's role, and the payment requirement. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and return-format details, but that is a minor gap given no output schema and a simple schema.
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?
The schema already describes networkAddress as a top funding-network address in base58, and coverage is 100%. The description's reference to a wallet network adds mild context but does not materially deepen parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a clear subject ('funding-network overview') and the main output contents: tokens bundled or created by a wallet network, holder percentages, and risk levels. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from some siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with network_details_wallets or holder_analysis.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as network_details_wallets, token_stats, or holder_analysis. It mentions the pricing/payment requirement, but that is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.