Skip to main content
Glama

Hundo

by finance.hundo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

propose_asset_convert

Propose converting one asset into another (a cashless swap, e.g. spend SOL to acquire a new coin). Records a sell of the source and a buy of the destination at one shared value, moving no cash account. When the user does not hold the destination yet, pass newDestAsset instead of destAssetId: confirming creates it. Returns a proposal id; to record it, call the confirm_proposal tool with the returned proposalId after the user approves (there is no UI button or proposal card to click in this context). Validates the user holds enough of the source. Pass the trade value in the user's base currency, or omit it to auto-derive from the source's market price. Always include a short user-supplied description.

MCP note: this tool only CREATES a pending proposal; nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesYYYY-MM-DD.
valueNoTrade value in MAJOR units of the user's base currency (the displayed amount, e.g. 850 for $850). This is the value of the source quantity at trade time; it becomes the destination's cost basis. Omit to auto-derive it from the source asset's latest market price.
descriptionYesShort user-supplied description, e.g. 'Swapped SOL for BONK'.
destAssetIdNoId of the asset being acquired (the destination), from getAssets. Must differ from the source. Omit it only when the user does not hold the destination yet, and pass newDestAsset instead.
destQuantityYesNumber of units of the destination asset received.
newDestAssetNoPass this INSTEAD of an asset id, only when getAssets shows the user does not hold the asset yet. Confirming the proposal creates the asset and records the trade together.
sourceAssetIdYesId of the asset being spent (the source of the swap).
sourceQuantityYesNumber of units of the source asset to spend.
editsProposalIdNoId of an existing pending proposal to update in place. Pass this when the user asks to modify a proposal you previously made (e.g. 'make it 5 SOL instead'). Look up current ids with listPendingProposals if you're unsure. Omit when proposing something new.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / destAssetId / description
      Previous value: -"Id of the asset being acquired (the destination). Must already exist and differ from the source."New value: +"Id of the asset being acquired (the destination), from getAssets. Must differ from the source. Omit it only when the user does not hold the destination yet, and pass newDestAsset instead."
    • addedInput schema / properties / destAssetId / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / newDestAsset
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pass this INSTEAD of an asset id, only when getAssets shows the user does not hold the asset yet. Confirming the proposal creates the asset and records the trade together.",
+  "properties": {
+    "symbol": {
+      "description": "For crypto and stock: the ticker, e.g. \"SOL\" or \"AAPL\" (use the exchange suffix for a non-US listing, e.g. \"BBCA.JK\"). For commodity: \"gold\", \"silver\", \"platinum\" or \"palladium\". For every other type: a short name the user will recognize, e.g. \"Honda Civic 2021\".",
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "crypto, stock (shares, ETFs and funds), commodity (gold, silver, platinum, palladium), real_estate, vehicle, bond or other.",
+      "enum": [
+        "crypto",
+        "stock",
+        "commodity",
+        "real_estate",
+        "vehicle",
+        "bond",
+        "other"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "unit": {
+      "description": "Commodity only, and then required: the unit the quantity is in - toz (troy ounce), g or kg. The price per unit must be in the same unit.",
+      "enum": [
+        "toz",
+        "g",
+        "kg"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "valuationMode": {
+      "description": "Omit it. \"auto\" (the default for crypto, stock and commodity) follows the market price. Pass \"manual\" only when the user says the asset has no market price, e.g. shares in a private company; its value is then the price paid until the user updates it.",
+      "enum": [
+        "auto",
+        "manual"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "type",
+    "symbol"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "sourceAssetId",
-  "sourceQuantity",
-  "destAssetId",
-  "destQuantity",
-  "date",
-  "description"
-]New value: +[
+  "sourceAssetId",
+  "sourceQuantity",
+  "destQuantity",
+  "date",
+  "description"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: it creates only a pending proposal, nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal, the source balance is validated, and confirming newDestAsset also creates the asset. The one gap is that idempotentHint=false implies repeated calls spawn duplicate proposals, which is never warned about.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then flows into conditional guidance and the next step. Mostly tight, but the final MCP note largely restates the earlier 'only creates a pending proposal' sentence, so there is mild redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description still covers the proposal-only lifecycle, the confirm step, the returned proposalId, required inputs, and conditional parameter routing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine routing semantics beyond the schema: the newDestAsset-vs-destAssetId choice and the editsProposalId modification path, plus the value auto-derivation behavior and its role as the destination's cost basis.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('propose converting one asset into another') and immediately qualifies it as a cashless swap that records a sell and a buy at one shared value with no cash movement. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like propose_asset_trade and propose_transfer without needing the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing rules are given for every ambiguous case: use newDestAsset instead of destAssetId when the user doesn't hold the destination, pass editsProposalId to modify an existing proposal, omit value to auto-derive from market price, and always supply a description. It also names the required follow-up (confirm_proposal) and warns there is no UI affordance in this context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Hundo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources