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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses non-custodial nature and treasury payment on chain 4663, but does not explain required authorization, idempotency, limits, or what happens on duplicate plans.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value with no fluff.
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 tool has 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks explanation for the required 'owner' parameter and does not describe return behavior or side effects beyond treasury payment.
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 67%; descriptions for tier and ethAmount add value by clarifying preference. However, the required 'owner' parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the tool description, leaving a gap.
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 'Build' and the resource 'non-custodial ETH subscription plan', and provides options (tier or ethAmount). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscription_status which query plans, but does not explicitly differentiate from 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 this tool is for creating a new subscription plan, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools helps, but no direct 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.
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.