getSRC20TokenFetch metadata for a single SRC-20 token (the Bitcoin Stamps fungible-token standard) by ticker: deploy info, max supply, mint progress, holder count, and creator. SRC-20 is the Stamps protocol equivalent of BRC-20.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tick | Yes | SRC-20 token ticker, typically 4 characters (e.g. 'KEVIN', 'STAMP'). Case-insensitive. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with 'Fetch metadata.' The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the kinds of data returned (deploy info, max supply, mint progress, holder count, creator) and clarifying the token standard. No contradictions with annotations; it enriches the behavioral picture.
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 exactly two sentences: the first packs the action, resource, scope, and output fields; the second adds brief context about the standard. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core behavior and lists the returned metadata categories, even without an output schema. It does not describe return format or error conditions, but the tool's simplicity and the annotations (read-only, idempotent) reduce the need for more. Sibling tools like searchSRC20Tokens and getBRC20TokenInfo provide ecosystem context.
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% for the single parameter 'tick,' with a thorough description including format and case-insensitivity. The description only restates that it fetches 'by ticker,' adding little meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic burden.
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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: metadata for a single SRC-20 token by ticker. It also lists the exact metadata fields (deploy info, max supply, mint progress, holder count, creator) and distinguishes this from BRC-20 by noting SRC-20 is the Stamps protocol equivalent, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like getBRC20TokenInfo.
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 implies its use case (fetch metadata for a single SRC-20 token by ticker) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as searchSRC20Tokens or getBRC20TokenInfo. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.