MiCA article-coverage evidence for one token across 12 MiCA-related articles. Returns per-article evidence indicators for human review - not a compliance verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token_symbol | Yes | Token symbol e.g. EURC, USDC, RLUSD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context by clarifying that the output is per-article evidence indicators and not a compliance verdict, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, output format, or any limitations, leaving room for more transparency.
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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return value as 'per-article evidence indicators' and clarifies the scope (12 MiCA articles, one token). It could be more detailed about the nature of the indicators or article names, but for a simple one-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete.
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 schema already fully describes token_symbol with examples (EURC, USDC, RLUSD), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 it provides MiCA article-coverage evidence for one token across 12 articles, using 'Returns' to indicate the action. It distinguishes itself from a compliance verdict and sibling tools like mica_market_overview or mica_status by focusing on per-article evidence, not overall status or market overview.
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 the output is 'for human review - not a compliance verdict,' which provides a clear usage context and an exclusion (not for automated verdicts). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like evidence_bundle or evidence_profile, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct target: peg_deviation vs peg_history, mica_status vs mica_market_overview, audit_log/query/verify, and evidence_profile/bundle/leaderboard are all differentiated by their descriptions. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
All tools use lowercase snake_case with a consistent domain-prefix pattern (e.g., audit_*, mica_*, peg_*, evidence_*). There is no camelCase or mixed verb styles, making the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
With 25 tools, the server is at the upper boundary of the borderline range. The broad MiCA and compliance domain justifies many tools, but the count feels heavy, and some tools like rlusd_integrity are very specific to a single asset.
The server covers the core compliance workflow: authorization checks, peg and reserve monitoring, liquidity, evidence scoring, audit trails, and AI explainability. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for generating a consolidated compliance report or scheduling recurring checks, but the main surface is well-covered.