Skip to main content
Glama

DeFade — Multi-Chain Memecoin Analyzer

by org.defade

Holder distribution

get_holders
Read-onlyIdempotent

Holder distribution for one token, with liquidity pools, burn addresses, lockers, exchange wallets and contracts classified out, so the top-holder list reflects actual holders. Returns the classified top holders with each wallet's supply share in a single response — no pagination. Use it to answer how concentrated the supply is and whether a few wallets could collapse the chart. Not for what large holders are doing right now (get_whales), whether holders are secretly one actor (get_wallet_links or get_lookalike_clusters), or pool depth and locks (get_liquidity). Arguments: address and chain; one API unit on any chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain the token is deployed on: solana (default), ethereum, base, robinhood. Required for any 0x address, because the same contract address can exist on several EVM chains. Omit it for Solana. An unsupported value is rejected before any request is spent; EVM chains need a key on an All-Chains plan.solana
addressYesThe token's own contract address, exactly as an explorer shows it. Solana: the base58 mint, 32-44 characters (e.g. 6p6xgHyF7AeE6TZkSmFsko444wqoP15icUSqi2jfGiPN). EVM: 0x followed by 40 hex characters, case-insensitive (e.g. 0x6982508145454ce325ddbe47a25d4ec3d2311933). Never a pool, pair, wallet or deployer address — those come back as not found. Set `chain` to match the address: a 0x address alone cannot say which EVM chain it lives on, and a Solana mint sent with an EVM chain is rejected.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoThe address that was scanned (on get_token_scan, the full token metadata object instead).
bundlesNoShallow bundle detection over the real wallets: detected, bundlePct, groups.
poweredByNoAlways "DeFade.org".
timestampNoISO time the response was assembled.
topHoldersNoTop 20 accounts: rank, address, walletAddress, amount, percentage, solBalance, isProtocol, protocolLabel.
lockedSupplyNopct plus a lockers array naming each escrow.
totalHoldersNoHolder count, estimated from the top accounts.
concentrationNotop5, top10, top20 as percent of supply, counting real wallets only.
deferredUnlockNoSupply that unlocks back to the deployer later: pct, unlockDate, cancelablePct. Null when none.
protocolHoldingsNoWhat was excluded: count and totalPct.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / bundles / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / concentration / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / deferredUnlock / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / lockedSupply / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / poweredBy / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / protocolHoldings / type
      Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / timestamp / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / topHolders / type
      Previous value: -"array"New value: +[
+  "array",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / totalHolders / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "bundles": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Shallow bundle detection over the real wallets: detected, bundlePct, groups.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "concentration": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "top5, top10, top20 as percent of supply, counting real wallets only.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "deferredUnlock": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Supply that unlocks back to the deployer later: pct, unlockDate, cancelablePct. Null when none.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "lockedSupply": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "pct plus a lockers array naming each escrow.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "poweredBy": {
+      "description": "Always \"DeFade.org\".",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "protocolHoldings": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "What was excluded: count and totalPct.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "timestamp": {
+      "description": "ISO time the response was assembled.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "description": "The address that was scanned (on get_token_scan, the full token metadata object instead)."
+    },
+    "topHolders": {
+      "description": "Top 20 accounts: rank, address, walletAddress, amount, percentage, solBalance, isProtocol, protocolLabel.",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "totalHolders": {
+      "description": "Holder count, estimated from the top accounts.",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Previous value: -"Token contract address. A base58 mint for Solana, or 0x-prefixed for EVM chains. Set `chain` to match — a 0x address alone cannot say which EVM chain it lives on."New value: +"The token's own contract address, exactly as an explorer shows it. Solana: the base58 mint, 32-44 characters (e.g. 6p6xgHyF7AeE6TZkSmFsko444wqoP15icUSqi2jfGiPN). EVM: 0x followed by 40 hex characters, case-insensitive (e.g. 0x6982508145454ce325ddbe47a25d4ec3d2311933). Never a pool, pair, wallet or deployer address — those come back as not found. Set `chain` to match the address: a 0x address alone cannot say which EVM chain it lives on, and a Solana mint sent with an EVM chain is rejected."
    • changedInput schema / properties / chain / description
      Previous value: -"Which chain the address lives on. Defaults to solana."New value: +"Chain the token is deployed on: solana (default), ethereum, base, robinhood. Required for any 0x address, because the same contract address can exist on several EVM chains. Omit it for Solana. An unsupported value is rejected before any request is spent; EVM chains need a key on an All-Chains plan."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description goes further by disclosing key behaviors: excluded wallet categories, the fact that each wallet's supply share is included, that the full result comes in a single response without pagination, and that it costs one API unit on any chain. This adds real context beyond the annotations and contains 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact but information-dense. Each sentence earns its place: one for what the tool returns, one for the no-pagination behavior, one for usage guidance with alternatives, and one for argument/cost summary. Nothing is wasted and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Combined with rich parameter descriptions and annotations, the description fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly: what is classified out, what the response contains, cost, supported chains, and explicit sibling exclusions. There are no major gaps for a read-only list tool with a schema this detailed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents address format, chain enum, defaults, validation, and cross-chain ambiguity. The description merely names the arguments and adds the cost note; it does not need to compensate for a schema gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it produces a holder distribution for one token, with non-real holders (liquidity pools, burn addresses, lockers, exchange wallets, contracts) classified out. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_whales, get_wallet_links, and get_liquidity by explicitly saying what it is not for.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (to assess supply concentration and whether a few wallets could collapse the chart) and when not to, naming alternatives: get_whales, get_wallet_links, get_lookalike_clusters, and get_liquidity. This is explicit, actionable routing guidance.

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

All DeFade — Multi-Chain Memecoin Analyzer toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct forensic question — creator behavior, launch coordination, lone snipers, proven wallet links, behavioral similarity, config matching — and each description explicitly names which sibling tools it is NOT for. Even the near-inverse pair get_rug_score (danger probability) and get_token_scan (safety score) is handled with explicit call-routing rules. No two tools have unclear boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 15 tools follow the identical get_<noun> pattern with snake_case throughout: get_holders, get_whales, get_token_scan, get_usage. The verb is uniform and the noun precisely names the resource or analysis domain, making the surface trivially predictable.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools sits at the upper edge of the well-scoped range, and each tool earns its place as a distinct analysis module for the broad multi-chain memecoin forensics domain. Nothing feels redundant — the count reflects the genuine breadth of the domain: launch, holders, liquidity, forensics, market data, and quota.

Completeness4/5

The token risk-assessment lifecycle is thoroughly covered: scan → rug score → holders → whales → dev tracker → launch → liquidity → forensics → price → usage form a complete investigation pathway with no dead ends. Minor gaps exist: no long historical price data (get_token_price only returns recent candles) and no token discovery/search — the server assumes you already have an address. These are work-aroundable but arguably core for a full analyzer.

Resources