Get the live USD price of an Ondo tokenized stock from the Pyth oracle. Returns current price and timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker (e.g. NVDA, AAPL, TSLA, META, MSFT, GOOGL, AMZN, SPY, QQQ) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing safety profile. Description adds that it returns price and timestamp, which is consistent but does not elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.
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?
Single sentence, no redundant words, efficiently conveys purpose and output. Front-loaded with key information.
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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states return fields (price, timestamp). Minor gap: no indication of data format or precision.
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 100% with a clear description for the ticker parameter. Description does not add additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'live USD price of an Ondo tokenized stock', and the source 'Pyth oracle'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_stocks and buy/sell requests by focusing on price retrieval.
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?
Description implies usage for fetching stock prices but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives like request_buy_stock exist but are not mentioned.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: informational gets/lists, action-oriented requests with confirm_code, and a status checker. No two tools overlap in function; e.g., get_stock_price vs get_rwa_portfolio differentiate price vs holdings.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for retrieval, list_ for enumeration, request_ for actions requiring authorization, and check_ for status. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
16 tools cover the full scope of Gitbank's functionality—viewing balances, portfolios, prices, transactions, and initiating deposits, withdrawals, swaps, stock trades, bounty assignments, and token launches. The count is well-proportioned for a complex financial/project management server.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for querying and initiating actions, but lacks a tool to cancel pending requests or to directly confirm actions (confirmation happens externally via GitHub). Minor gap, but core workflows are supported.
