Get metadata for one canonical Stock Token or core asset by symbol (e.g. NVDA) or contract address on Robinhood Chain 4663. Use to verify a token is official before trading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbolOrAddress | Yes | Ticker like NVDA or 0x contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is a read-only lookup ('Get metadata') but does not specify what fields are returned, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. While the intent is clear, the lack of return structure details leaves some ambiguity.
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 concise sentences that front-load the action and purpose. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and typical use case.
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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case and identifier types. Adding a note about the metadata returned (e.g., 'name, symbol, decimals') would make it fully complete, but the current level is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'symbolOrAddress', explaining it accepts tickers or contract addresses. The description adds context about the blockchain ('Robinhood Chain 4663') and the purpose, which is helpful but does not significantly extend schema semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get metadata'), identifies the resource ('canonical Stock Token or core asset'), and specifies identifiers ('symbol or contract address'). It also states the use case ('verify a token is official before trading'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'stocktoken_list' which would return multiple tokens.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use to verify a token is official before trading.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., 'stocktoken_list' for listing all tokens) provides implicit guidance. A clearer exclusion for alternative tools would improve the score.
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.