TokenBel Financial Data

token_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List active tokens with optional filtering by fintech platform and token lifecycle status. Tokens do not have tickers; use this list tool to browse tokenized securities by platform/status. Supports cursor-based pagination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results (1-1000, default 50)
`status`	No	Filter by token lifecycle status: SELL_NOT_STARTED (sale not open yet), SELL_IN_PROGRESS (currently selling), SELL_SUSPENDED (sale paused), SOLD_OUT (fully sold), SELL_ENDED (sale ended), CIRCULATION_ENDED (matured/circulation ended), OBLIGATIONS_COMPLETED (issuer obligations completed).
`platform`	No	Filter by tokenization platform: fainex, finstore, bynex, or whitebird.
`cursor_uuid`	No	TokenBel internal identifier: opaque hexadecimal string, usually 8 characters such as "78c7e502"; despite uuid field/tool names, it is not an RFC UUID and normally has no hyphens. Pagination cursor id from next_cursor before the \| delimiter.
`cursor_created_at`	No	Pagination cursor datetime (ISO 8601)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`tokens`	Yes
`next_cursor`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds cursor-based pagination, a key behavioral detail. No contradictions. For a read tool, this is sufficient transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences: first states core function and constraints, second adds pagination. No filler, front-loaded, every word earns its place. Excellent structure.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 5 parameters with full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, key filters, and pagination support. It doesn't explain return data, but the output schema suffices. Adequately complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond summarizing filter capabilities. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema carries the load.

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 lists active tokens with optional filtering by platform and status. It explicitly distinguishes from ticker-based search by noting tokens lack tickers, and positions this as the browsing tool. Differentiates well from sibling list tools like bond_list, share_list, and individual get tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: use this to browse tokenized securities by platform/status when you don't have a ticker. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention sibling search tools (e.g., search_by_ticker) as alternatives. Implicit guidance but not comprehensive exclusions.

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

All TokenBel Financial Data 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity or operation: bonds, shares, tokens, companies, issuers, currency rates, news, and searches. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar tools like bond_list and company_bonds_list are clearly differentiated by scope (global vs per-company).

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools mostly follow a pattern of entity_noun + verb (e.g., bond_list, share_get_by_uuid, company_bonds_list). Some exceptions like currency_rate_get and entity_news_list place the verb at the end, but the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 19 tools covering bonds, shares, tokens, companies, issuers, currency rates, news, and trading statistics, the number is well-calibrated to the domain. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides comprehensive read access to the financial data domain: search, retrieval, listing with filters, trading statistics, and news. All expected query operations are present, and no obvious gaps are apparent for a data provider.

Resources

Need Help?