Build non-custodial tx plan (approve + swap) via best venue (Uniswap / 0x). Does NOT sign or broadcast. Chain 4663.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| tokenIn | Yes | ||
| amountIn | No | ||
| tokenOut | Yes | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| approveMax | No | ||
| notionalUsd | No | ||
| slippageBps | No | ||
| amountInHuman | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states that the tool does NOT sign or broadcast, which is crucial behavioral info. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations, this is adequate but incomplete.
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 sentences with no fluff. Key actions (build plan, approve+swap) and constraints (non-custodial, no sign/broadcast, chain) are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains the core action but omits output format, parameter details, and edge cases. A more complete description would cover these aspects.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters, but it only mentions approve+swap and best venue. No parameter details (e.g., owner, tokenIn, tokenOut, amountIn, slippageBps) are explained, leaving the schema's undocumented fields ambiguous.
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 it builds a non-custodial transaction plan for approve+swap via a best venue (Uniswap/0x), and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it does not sign or broadcast and operates on chain 4663.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stocktoken_quote or stocktoken_subscribe_plan. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some pairs (e.g., stocktoken_quote vs stocktoken_simulate, stocktoken_protocols vs stocktoken_find_pools) could cause confusion if descriptions are not read carefully.
All tools share the 'stocktoken_' prefix, but the pattern is inconsistent: some use verb_noun (access_activate, execute_plan), others use single verb (get, list, simulate), and some use noun phrases (metrics, liquidity_matrix, morpho_deposit_plan).
37 tools is high for an MCP server, covering access, subscriptions, sessions, tips, and trading. While many are needed for a full on-chain system, the count feels excessive and could be streamlined.
The server covers most major operations: listing, pricing, quoting, simulation, execution planning, liquidity, access control, and system management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no broadcast tool, no explicit cancel/undo), but overall it's comprehensive.