Crypto price and threshold consensus with ML-DSA-65 attestation and Base anchoring.
Scored across 3 tools
The two crypto tools overlap in their use of multi-source price consensus, but one verifies price while the other resolves a threshold condition. The overview tool occupies a different meta-role but is broad and could distract from domain operations.
All tool names follow the snake_case format and share the 'get_' prefix, creating a predictable pattern. However, the action verb usage is inconsistent—'resolve' and 'verify' are actions while 'stratalize' is a proper noun, making the names slightly awkward and not fully aligned.
Three tools is on the low end of typical and close to feeling thin. One tool is a meta-catalog rather than a core domain operation, so only two tools genuinely serve the crypto oracle purpose.
The server claims to offer a much broader tool catalog across finance, healthcare, governance, and more, but only exposes crypto price verification and threshold resolution. The overview tool points to capabilities that are not actually available on this server, creating a significant gap between promise and surface.
Resolve whether a crypto asset is above or below a threshold via multi-source consensus for settlement and verification workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fiat | No | usd | |
| symbol | Yes | ||
| direction | Yes | ||
| threshold | Yes | ||
| tolerance_pct | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by revealing the 'multi-source consensus' mechanism, which informs the agent about reliability and potential latency. However, it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or rate limits.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and mechanism. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description provides a high-level purpose but omits return value format, how threshold comparison is performed, the role of tolerance_pct, and any edge cases. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional schemas.
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 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters like fiat, tolerance_pct, or the exact semantics of threshold comparison. It only hints at 'above or below' and 'crypto asset', leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's function: resolving whether a crypto asset is above or below a threshold. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'multi-source consensus' and the specific 'threshold' focus, which contrasts with the more general price verification implied by the sibling name get_verify_crypto_price.
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 provides clear context for use ('settlement and verification workflows') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies a specific use case but stops short of naming sibling tools or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
START HERE — Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog: governed MCP tools across finance, healthcare, governance, real estate, crypto, and intelligence. Available via public MCP (no auth) or x402 micropayments on Base ($0.02 atomic · $0.10 benchmark · $0.50 synthesis · $1.00 premium · $3.00 outcome pack). Org intelligence, agent governance, and role briefs require OAuth. Call this first to discover tools by role or vertical.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces the read-only nature ('Returns... catalog'). It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as pricing tiers and OAuth requirements, which are not derivable from schema or annotations.
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 concise and well-structured: it starts with a clear directive ('START HERE'), then states the primary purpose, followed by access/pricing details, and ends with an actionable instruction. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.
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?
Despite having no output schema and no parameters, the description is highly complete for a catalog overview tool. It covers purpose, usage, access/auth nuances, and how to navigate the tool ecosystem. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description appropriately does not discuss parameters, implying the tool requires no input.
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 clearly states the tool 'Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are individual data benchmarks) by being the overview/catalog tool, and explicitly positions itself as 'START HERE'.
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?
It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to discover tools by role or vertical.' It also clarifies when different access methods (public MCP vs x402 vs OAuth) apply, which helps the agent decide how to invoke and what to expect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Verify current crypto asset price via multi-source consensus. Returns attested consensus price with agreement score across independent sources (CoinGecko, Coinbase, Kraken).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fiat | No | usd | |
| symbol | Yes | ||
| tolerance_pct | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that it aggregates data from independent sources (CoinGecko, Coinbase, Kraken) and returns an attested consensus price with an agreement score. However, it does not describe what happens if sources disagree or other edge-case behaviors.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and return type, but omits details about parameter meanings and consensus failure behavior. It is adequate for a simple read operation but has clear gaps.
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 0% and the description does not explain the meanings of symbol, fiat, or tolerance_pct. It only loosely implies that 'crypto asset price' relates to these parameters, leaving the tolerance_pct semantics particularly unclear. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Verify current crypto asset price' with a distinctive method (multi-source consensus). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_resolve_price_threshold and get_stratalize_overview by emphasizing verification and consensus rather than threshold resolution or overview.
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 when to use the tool (when you need to verify a current price via consensus) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No reference is made to sibling tools or when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is only implicit.
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.
get_resolve_price_thresholdget_stratalize_overviewget_verify_crypto_priceAgent-native price and event oracle with cryptographic source attestation
Post-quantum, tamper-evident receipts for agent actions. Ed25519 + ML-DSA-65, offline verify.
PJM/MISO energy arbitrage. Intel TDX attested, on-chain every 60 min. MCP tools for AI agents.
Ed25519-signed ground-truth oracle — 63 paid x402 tools live on Base mainnet.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.