Simulate / pre-trade check for a tokenized stock swap on chain 4663: allowlist, policy, multi-venue quote integrity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenIn | Yes | ||
| amountIn | No | ||
| tokenOut | Yes | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| notionalUsd | Yes | ||
| slippageBps | No | ||
| amountInHuman | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a simulation and checks allowlist, policy, and quote integrity, indicating it is likely read-only. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether state changes occur.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes key details (chain, checks). No unnecessary words.
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 of 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, parameter formats, or how to interpret results. The agent would lack essential information.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the seven parameters (e.g., tokenIn, amountIn, tokenOut, sessionId, notionalUsd, slippageBps, amountInHuman). This is a critical gap for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 specifies the verb 'Simulate' and the resource 'tokenized stock swap on chain 4663', listing specific checks (allowlist, policy, multi-venue quote integrity). This distinguishes it from siblings like stocktoken_quote or stocktoken_execute_plan.
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 it is a pre-trade check but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., stocktoken_quote for quotes, stocktoken_find_pools for discovery). No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it.
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.