stocktoken_session_update
Update limits/permissions on an existing session.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | ||
| permissions | No | ||
| maxNotionalUsd | No | ||
| allowlistSymbols | No | ||
| maxDailyNotionalUsd | No |
Update limits/permissions on an existing session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | ||
| permissions | No | ||
| maxNotionalUsd | No | ||
| allowlistSymbols | No | ||
| maxDailyNotionalUsd | No |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only states 'Update' implying mutation, but does not disclose authorization needs, side effects, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits.
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 concise sentence, but it is overly minimal for a tool with 5 parameters. It is front-loaded with the purpose but lacks structure or elaboration.
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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, whether updates are additive or replace, or any important context for successful 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to parameters beyond their names and types in the schema. For a tool with 5 parameters, more explanation is needed.
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 verb 'Update' and resource 'limits/permissions on an existing session', distinguishing it from siblings like session_create, session_kill, and session_list.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use. The description provides no usage context.
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.