Retrieve aggregated stats for any Solana token: price, market cap, volume windows, holder count, and liquidity. Input a mint address to get comprehensive token metrics.
Aggregate stats for a Solana token: price, market cap, volume windows, holder count, liquidity.
Price: $0.01 (paid in USDC on Solana via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana mint address (base58) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the call costs $0.01 paid in USDC via x402, which is valuable before invoking. However, it omits other behavioral details such as return format, freshness, failures, or whether the stats are synchronous, leaving part of the burden unmet.
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?
The description is compact: the first sentence front-loads the core stats, and the second sentence conveys the payment requirement. Minor deduction for the ambiguous label 'Price:' for the tool's cost, since 'price' is also one of the returned stats.
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 tool with no output schema, the description names both the returned stat categories and the payment requirement, which is enough to make a correctly formed call. It could be stronger with explicit output structure or sibling routing, but those are modest gaps at this complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes mint as a Solana mint address in base58. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying 'Solana token,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Aggregate stats for a Solana token,' and enumerates the concrete stats returned: price, market cap, volume windows, holder count, and liquidity. It does not explicitly differentiate token_stats from siblings like token_details or holder_analysis, but the aggregation framing and stat list make the intended scope reasonably clear.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus token_details, holder_analysis, holder_graph, or other siblings. The only additional line is a payment note, which does not help an agent choose among tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.