AI Agent Tokenized Stock OS: list canonical tokenized stocks (Robinhood Stock Tokens), ETFs, USDG, and WETH on Robinhood Chain ID 4663. Use for AI agents trading tokenized equities/RWAs. Do NOT use for US brokerage equities (use Robinhood Trading MCP). Only registry addresses are real tokenized stocks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Filter by token kind; default all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares what tokens are listed and the chain, implying a read-only list operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any side effects. Good but could be more explicit.
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 delivering purpose and usage guidelines efficiently. Slight branding in first sentence ('AI Agent Tokenized Stock OS:') but does not waste words. Good structure with front-loaded purpose.
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, scope, and usage caveats. Missing return format or pagination details, but as a list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for selection and 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 coverage is 100% with the 'kind' parameter well-described in schema (enum values and filter default). Description adds context that kinds map to stock, etf, stable, wrapped_native but does not add beyond schema. 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 clearly states it lists canonical tokenized stocks, ETFs, USDG, and WETH on Robinhood Chain ID 4663, distinguishing it from US brokerage equities. Specific verb 'list' and resource 'canonical tokenized stocks'.
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?
Explicitly indicates use for AI agents trading tokenized equities/RWAs and warns against using for US brokerage equities, directing to Robinhood Trading MCP. Also notes that only registry addresses are real tokenized stocks.
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.
All tools have clearly distinct purposes, covering access management, token queries, trading, sessions, subscriptions, tips, and system operations. No two tools appear to do the same thing; even related tools like deposit/withdraw plans are differentiated.
All tools follow a consistent 'stocktoken_' prefix with lowercase underscore-separated names. The pattern is uniform (e.g., verb_noun or single noun), with no mixing of camelCase or other styles.
37 tools is high for an MCP server but each tool addresses a specific function within a complex domain (tokenized stock OS, on-chain payments, subscriptions, etc.). The count is justified, though slightly beyond typical scoping.
The tool surface covers all major aspects: access lifecycle, token metadata, trading (simulate, quote, execute plan), sessions, subscriptions, tips, policies, liquidity, and system status. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.