Value a wallet's Stock Token / ETF / USDG balances on Robinhood Chain 4663. Use for portfolio analysis of onchain RWA holdings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | 0x wallet address | |
| symbols | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description implies a read operation ('value') but does not disclose authorization needs or rate limits. Adequate 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 with no wasted words; purpose and context are front-loaded.
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?
For a simple valuation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the chain, wallet address, and asset types. Missing output format details, but sufficient for core understanding.
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 50%; description adds context by listing asset types (Stock Token, ETF, USDG) but does not fully explain the 'symbols' array parameter or its usage.
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 values a wallet's balances of Stock Token, ETF, and USDG on a specific chain, distinguishing it from siblings like stocktoken_price or stocktoken_get.
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 mentions use for portfolio analysis of onchain RWA holdings, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives.
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.