Current TAO USD price + 24h change (from the screener's tao_price_usd table).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "tao_price"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does establish that this is a point-in-time read of a specific table. It says nothing about freshness, caching, update cadence, or whether the 24h change is computed server-side, which matters for a price feed.
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?
A single sentence with the metric front-loaded and the data provenance tucked into a parenthetical. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.
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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned and where it comes from, which is sufficient. The only meaningful gap is freshness/latency, which an agent calling a price feed would reasonably want.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly adds no parameter chatter.
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 names a specific resource and metric: current TAO USD price plus 24h change, and even cites the backing table (tao_price_usd). The word 'Current' implicitly separates it from the forecast sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'Current' suggests using this for spot price rather than tao_forecast's projections. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of whether to pair it with the forecast tool.
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.