Build non-custodial ETH subscription plan (tier pro|team, or custom ethAmount). Pays treasury on chain 4663.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | pro | team — preferred over raw ethAmount | |
| owner | Yes | ||
| ethAmount | No | Custom ETH amount if not using a named tier, e.g. "0.01" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description mentions 'non-custodial' and 'Pays treasury on chain 4663', adding behavioral context. However, it doesn't specify whether the build is a simulation or actual on-chain transaction, required permissions, or side effects like ETH transfer.
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?
Single sentence packs key info: action, resource, non-custodial nature, parameter options, and on-chain behavior. Efficient but slightly dense; could benefit from line breaks for readability.
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?
Covers purpose and parameter usage but omits return value, error states, prerequisites (e.g., wallet connection), and relationship to sibling tools. Without output schema, a hint about what the tool returns would improve completeness.
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?
Description reinforces schema's parameter hints for tier and ethAmount, but owner (required) lacks any description in schema or text. With schema description coverage at 67%, the description adds marginal value but fails to clarify owner's purpose.
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?
Description states 'Build non-custodial ETH subscription plan', clearly indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like stocktoken_subscription_tiers (which lists tiers) and stocktoken_execute_plan (which executes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other plan-building tools like stocktoken_morpho_deposit_plan or stocktoken_tip_plan, leaving some ambiguity.
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 vs. alternatives such as stocktoken_tip_plan or stocktoken_morpho_deposit_plan. It implies usage via tier/custom ETH but doesn't specify context 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.