Read USD price and ERC-8056 uiMultiplier for a Robinhood Stock Token on chain 4663. Prefer this over generic price tools for Stock Tokens. Feed price already includes corporate-action multiplier when Chainlink is configured. Not for brokerage stock quotes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbolOrAddress | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the price already includes a corporate-action multiplier when Chainlink is configured, which is critical for interpretation. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but for a read-only price tool, this is sufficient.
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 brief (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description should specify the return shape. It mentions two outputs (price and uiMultiplier) but not their structure or order. For a simple tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity.
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 sole parameter symbolOrAddress has 0% schema documentation. The description does not explain that it accepts a token symbol or contract address; it only references the asset type generically. This leaves the agent without format or validation guidance.
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 tool reads USD price and uiMultiplier for a specific asset (Robinhood Stock Token on chain 4663), using a direct verb ('Read') and resource, and distinguishes it from generic price tools by recommending preference for Stock 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 says 'Prefer this over generic price tools for Stock Tokens' and 'Not for brokerage stock quotes', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.