ChangeNOW

Build a confirmation link

swap_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a changenow.io link with the pair, the amount, the recipient address and the memo already filled in, so the user checks the numbers on the real page and presses Confirm themselves. Opening the link creates nothing. This is the recommended way to finish a swap: the user sees the rate and the address with their own eyes, which no amount of care in a chat transcript can replace. Use create_swap instead only when the user has explicitly approved this exact amount and address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	Asset the user receives, canonical id.
`from`	Yes	Asset the user sends, canonical id.
`memo`	No	Memo or destination tag to prefill.
`locale`	No	Two letter locale for the page, for example "es". English needs no locale.
`address`	No	Recipient address to prefill. The user can still change it on the page.
`amount_to`	No	Amount to prefill as the amount received. Implies a fixed rate on the page.
`rate_type`	No	Which rate the page opens with.	float
`amount_from`	No	Amount to prefill as the amount sent.
`refund_address`	No	Refund address to prefill.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`prefilled`	Yes
`creates_order`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: 'Opening the link creates nothing' and explains that the user, not the assistant, performs the confirmation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is tightly written and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place: what it builds, that it has no side effects, why it is recommended, and when to use the alternative. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 9 parameters, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, safety, workflow recommendation, and alternative routing. Parameter details and return values are handled by the schemas, so nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds general context about what the link prefills (pair, amount, address, memo), but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to build a changenow.io confirmation link with swap details prefilled. It uses a specific verb ('Build') and distinct resource ('changenow.io link'), and differentiates itself from the sibling create_swap by explaining the confirmation-first workflow.

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?

The description explicitly recommends this tool as the default way to finish a swap, explains why (user verifies rate and address on the real page), and gives a precise condition for using the alternative create_swap instead. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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

All ChangeNOW tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct stage or resource: asset discovery, quoting, validation, order creation, link generation, and status tracking. Even the overlapping swap-related tools are clearly separated by whether they compute, create, or hand off to the user.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: list_assets, get_asset, quote_swap, create_swap, check_swap_status, validate_address. swap_link is the one outlier, as it reads as a noun rather than an action, slightly breaking the otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a swap-focused exchange API. Each tool covers an essential part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full swap workflow: discover assets, get asset details, quote with rates and limits, validate recipient addresses, create or link a swap, and check the resulting order status. No critical missing operation is apparent for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?