List all available Ondo tokenized stocks that can be bought via Gitbank. Each stock is backed 1:1 by real Ondo tokens on Solana and represented as a soul-bound gitStock ERC-20 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that each stock is backed 1:1 by real Ondo tokens on Solana and represented as a soul-bound gitStock ERC-20 on Base. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key characteristics, with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action.
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?
The description explains what is listed and the backing, but does not specify the output format or fields returned. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at the structure of the returned data.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; baseline score of 4 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 lists all available Ondo tokenized stocks that can be bought via Gitbank, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_price (price of a specific stock) and request_buy_stock (buy action).
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 implies usage for browsing available stocks before purchase, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_stock_price or request_buy_stock. It provides context by mentioning 'can be bought via Gitbank.'
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.
