Compare Australian crypto exchanges and find where to buy cryptocurrency, with pricing, fees and estimated purchase outcomes. Built for AI agents, with paid data access using XRP on XRPL or USDC on Base through x402.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: find_best_australian_exchange ranks exchanges by best estimated outcome, while find_where_to_buy_crypto simply lists which exchanges offer an asset. Each description explicitly cross-references the other to steer selection, eliminating ambiguity.
Both names share the same 'find_' verb prefix and snake_case style, so they are predictable and easy to scan. The remainder diverges structurally (a comparative phrase vs. a 'where_to_buy' phrase), a minor deviation rather than an inconsistency.
Only two tools exist for a moderately rich domain (exchange comparison, availability, fees, asset coverage). It is borderline thin—functional for the two core queries but leaving little surface for related questions.
The set covers the two headline actions (where to buy, best outcome), but lacks obvious supporting operations like listing supported assets, fetching exchange details, or quote/price retrieval. Agents will hit dead ends for common follow-up questions.
Compare Australian cryptocurrency exchanges to identify the best estimated buying or selling outcome for a specified asset, AUD trade amount and direction. Use this tool when the user wants to compare exchange prices, fees or estimated value received. For simply finding exchanges that offer a cryptocurrency, use find_where_to_buy_crypto instead. Results are estimates, not guaranteed executable quotes, and no trade is placed. This is a paid data-access tool using XRP on XRPL Mainnet. First call without paymentSignature to receive an x402 v2 payment challenge. An authorised compatible payer must generate the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE for the exact resource and retry with identical inputs. Never supply wallet secrets. This server does not sign or initiate payments. If payment fails or times out, verify settlement before attempting another payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| side | No | Trade direction: buy spends AUD to acquire the asset; sell quotes disposal into AUD. Defaults to buy. | buy |
| asset | Yes | Cryptocurrency symbol, for example XRP, BTC or ETH | |
| amount | No | Trade amount in Australian dollars (AUD), not the API access price. Defaults to 1000; must be positive. | |
| paymentSignature | No | Optional base64 x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header generated by an authorised payer for the exact resource returned by an unpaid call. Omit to request a challenge. This is a payment payload, never a seed, private key, or password. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that results are estimates rather than executable quotes, that no trade is placed, that this is a paid XRP/XRPL data-access tool, and details the x402 v2 payment handshake (challenge on first call, PAYMENT-SIGNATURE retry with identical inputs, no wallet secrets, verify settlement before retrying). This is far beyond anything structured fields provide.
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?
Purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by the payment mechanics. The payment paragraph is long but each sentence is actionable for a paid tool; only slight tightening is possible.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral picture (estimate semantics, no trade, payment flow) and gestures at the return ('estimated value received'). It could say slightly more about the comparison output shape, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so asset, amount, side, and paymentSignature are already fully documented in the schema with defaults and constraints. The description restates the asset/amount/direction framing but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (compare) and resource (Australian cryptocurrency exchanges) with scope: best estimated buying or selling outcome for a given asset, AUD amount, and direction. It explicitly names and distinguishes itself from the sibling find_where_to_buy_crypto, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants to compare exchange prices, fees or estimated value received') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('For simply finding exchanges that offer a cryptocurrency, use find_where_to_buy_crypto instead'). Both routing and usage context are covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find Australian cryptocurrency exchanges offering a specified cryptocurrency for purchase using AUD. Use this tool when the user wants to know where an asset can be bought or which Australian exchanges offer it. For comparing the best estimated buy or sell outcome across exchanges, use find_best_australian_exchange instead. Results are estimates and do not place orders. This is a paid data-access tool using XRP on XRPL Mainnet. First call without paymentSignature to receive an x402 v2 payment challenge. An authorised compatible payer must generate PAYMENT-SIGNATURE for the exact resource and retry with identical inputs. Never supply wallet secrets. This server does not sign or initiate payments. If payment fails or times out, verify settlement before retrying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | Purchase amount in Australian dollars (AUD), not the API access price. Defaults to 1000; must be positive. | |
| symbol | Yes | Cryptocurrency symbol, for example XRP, TAO or ONDO | |
| paymentSignature | No | Optional base64 x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header generated by an authorised payer for the exact resource returned by an unpaid call. Omit to request a challenge. This is a payment payload, never a seed, private key, or password. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that no orders are placed, that this is a paid XRP/XRPL Mainnet data-access tool, the exact x402 v2 challenge/retry handshake, that no signing occurs server-side, and the wallet-secret prohibition. These are non-obvious operational traits that go well beyond what 'find' implies.
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?
Purpose and the alternative-tool routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is correct ordering. The payment-flow block is long but every clause is load-bearing given there are no annotations; a small amount of tightening (e.g. merging the settlement/retry guidance) would make it tighter.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on the payment protocol and safety constraints, which is the main gap an agent would otherwise fall into. It only lightly characterizes the return payload ('Results are estimates'), leaving output shape unstated, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents symbol, amount (AUD, positive, default 1000) and paymentSignature. The description reinforces the AUD-purchase framing but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find Australian cryptocurrency exchanges offering a specified cryptocurrency for purchase using AUD') and explicitly names the sibling it is not ('for comparing the best estimated buy or sell outcome across exchanges, use find_best_australian_exchange instead'). An agent can route between the two tools without opening either schema.
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?
Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when the user wants to know where an asset can be bought or which Australian exchanges offer it') and an explicit exclusion with the named alternative for a different intent. This is the strongest possible usage framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
find_best_australian_exchange3 fields changedInput schema / properties / amount / descriptionPrevious value: -"Amount in Australian dollars"New value: +"Trade amount in Australian dollars (AUD), not the API access price. Defaults to 1000; must be positive."Input schema / properties / paymentSignatureAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional base64 x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header generated by an authorised payer for the exact resource returned by an unpaid call. Omit to request a challenge. This is a payment payload, never a seed, private key, or password.",
+ "maxLength": 16384,
+ "minLength": 4,
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9+/]+={0,2}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / side / descriptionAdded value: +"Trade direction: buy spends AUD to acquire the asset; sell quotes disposal into AUD. Defaults to buy."find_where_to_buy_crypto2 fields changedInput schema / properties / amount / descriptionPrevious value: -"Purchase amount in Australian dollars"New value: +"Purchase amount in Australian dollars (AUD), not the API access price. Defaults to 1000; must be positive."Input schema / properties / paymentSignatureAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional base64 x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header generated by an authorised payer for the exact resource returned by an unpaid call. Omit to request a challenge. This is a payment payload, never a seed, private key, or password.",
+ "maxLength": 16384,
+ "minLength": 4,
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9+/]+={0,2}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}find_best_australian_exchangefind_where_to_buy_cryptoCompliance-filtered crypto exchange fee comparison and rebate-link routing for AI agents.
Crypto market data for AI agents: live prices, OHLCV, sentiment, indicators and exchanges.
Live crypto market data and Hyperliquid wallet reports for AI agents, paid per call with x402.
Verified market data for AI trading agents: quality-flagged candles, funding, OI, order flow. x402.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
