Retrieve token holder addresses for any Ethereum token by providing its contract address and chain ID. This tool queries blockchain data to identify wallet addresses holding specific tokens.
Get the token holders for a given token address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | Yes | The chain ID | |
| token_address | Yes | The address of the token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format (e.g., list of holders with balances). This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns sensitive or complex data.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of token holder data, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'token holders' means (e.g., addresses with balances), how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to handle.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('chain_id' and 'token_address'). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'token address' but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('token holders'), and identifies the key input ('token address'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_token_holders_count' or 'get_token_balance', which reduces clarity about its unique function.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_token_holders_count' for counts or 'get_token_balance' for individual balances, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.