Gitbank

request_sell_stock

Destructive

Sell Ondo tokenized stock back to USDC. Burns the user's soul-bound gitStock tokens on Base, sells Ondo stock for USDC on Jupiter (Solana), and bridges USDC back to the Gitbank vault via CCTP. Returns a confirm_code the user must post on GitHub to authorize.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount of gitStock tokens to sell (in stock units, 6 decimal places)
`ticker`	Yes	Stock ticker to sell (e.g. NVDA, AAPL, TSLA)
`github_username`	Yes	GitHub username of the seller

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations indicating destructiveness, the description details the burning, selling on Jupiter, bridging via CCTP, and the need for a GitHub confirm_code, adding significant behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains the overall process and return value but lacks details on error scenarios, prerequisites, or the implications of the authorization step, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema already covers all parameter descriptions with 100% coverage, and the description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond the schema.

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 sells Ondo tokenized stock back to USDC, outlines the multi-step process, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_buy_stock.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for selling stock but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for use or exclusions.

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

All Gitbank 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?