I half-disagree.
The first film was very "Iron Man and Friends" in its marketing and the presence each actor brought to their respective role. In terms of the actual narrative and screentime each character, it was pretty equal. But the former two reasons made the film feel more like "Iron Man and Friends" than it actually was.
By the second film the gap in success between Iron Man and the rest has shrunk, especially with Cap, and each actor has grown to embody their role in the same way. As such the film was more marketed on each character and characters with little screentime like Thor feel very present regardless. However, it's a much more Tony-driven narrative and he has significant more screentime than most of the rest of the team, even compared with Cap who had more screentime than him the first time around. So in that respect, this was a much more "Tony and Friends" film than the first.
I'd also argue that with the first film, the ways in which it was a "Tony and Friends" film were understandable for the time. Back then Downey was the only major success Marvel had. He was the glue holding the MCU's profits together, and everyone else was relatively newer and had less substance to work with in the other solo films (thus they hadn't grown in their role as much). This time it was a much fairer game all around. Marvel's had a number of hugely successful non-Iron Man products and each actor has greatly upped their game since then, especially Evans. To have an even more Tony focused narrative with the sequel is, in my opinion, inexcusable.
t:
