The pre-trade check. Look up a token by chain and contract address: which legal wrapper issued it, what holding it entitles you to, with the supporting quotes. A token XRADE has not covered gets an explicit 'not covered' answer, never a blank.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain name, e.g. ethereum, solana, arbitrum, bnb, robinhood, base, plume | |
| address | Yes | Token contract address (EVM 0x..., Solana mint, Ton or Tron address) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states that an uncovered token gets a definitive 'not covered' answer rather than a blank, and it describes what the lookup returns. It does not cover error cases or permissions, but those are less critical for a read-only lookup tool.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and timing, the second details the output and the key edge case. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job of conveying what the tool returns and how it behaves for unsupported tokens. Combined with the schema's full parameter documentation, this is sufficient for a two-parameter lookup tool.
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 explains chain and address formats sufficiently. The description only restates the parameter roles ('by chain and contract address') without adding new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 verb ('look up'), a specific resource ('token by chain and contract address'), and the output substance ('legal wrapper', entitlements, quotes). It also differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on tokens and pre-trade coverage, rather than stocks or wrapper records.
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 opening phrase 'The pre-trade check' gives clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of fully explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.