USD token prices read ON-CHAIN from Chainlink aggregator feeds through FlexYield's pool (no third-party price API). Supported symbols: eth, btc, link — more pairs on request. Each price carries updated_at and an honest stale flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | Yes | Comma-separated symbols, e.g. 'eth,btc' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the on-chain data source, the absence of a third-party API, and that each price includes updated_at and a stale flag. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it stops short of describing exact response shape or failure modes.
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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and source before providing supported symbols and output field details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 single-parameter price lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the source, supported symbols, and key output attributes (updated_at, stale flag). It does not specify the full response structure or error handling, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 documents the symbols parameter as comma-separated with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating supported symbols (eth, btc, link) and indicating that more pairs are available on request, helping the agent construct valid input. It does not cover case sensitivity or invalid-symbol behavior, but coverage is strong overall.
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 states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('token prices'), and a distinctive source ('Chainlink aggregator feeds through FlexYield's pool, no third-party price API'). It also lists supported symbols, making the tool's scope concrete and distinguishable from siblings like get_gas_prices.
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 intended use is implied: call this when USD token prices are needed. It provides supported symbols and notes that more pairs are available on request, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_gas_prices or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.