Pricing on both rails. Standard: 1 XRP or $1.00 USDC. AI-enhanced: 5 XRP or $7.00 USDC. FREE.
Each tier is reported as drops/xrp (XRPL) and usdc/usdc_micro (Solana).
The legacy "tourism" key is retained as a deprecated alias for "standard"
(both resolve to the standard tier: 1000000 drops / 1 XRP, or $1.00 USDC)
for backward compatibility. Prefer "standard". Will be removed in MCP API v2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful response behavior: dual-rail reporting (drops/xrp on XRPL, usdc/usdc_micro on Solana), a deprecated 'tourism' alias, and a v2 removal timeline. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether/why the payload varies, which matters for a pricing endpoint.
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?
It is short and front-loads the price table, but it is structured as response documentation rather than a tool description, and the tourism/deprecation paragraph is disproportionate to a single-parameter endpoint. 'FREE.' as a standalone sentence is inefficient.
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?
Absent an output schema, the description usefully documents the expected return keys, which is its main contribution. However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent still cannot tell what 'slug' does or what operational constraints apply before calling.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'slug' parameter (default '') is never mentioned. The description cannot compensate for the coverage gap because it says nothing about what a slug selects or how the response changes when one is supplied.
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 opening fragment 'Pricing on both rails' plus the tier list make it inferable that the tool returns the service's price tiers, but there is no explicit verb+resource statement (e.g., 'Returns current pricing for all service tiers'). Nothing distinguishes it from siblings beyond the subject matter, and 'FREE.' dangles without a predicate.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no comparison to the eight sibling tools. The only directive, 'Prefer "standard"', concerns which response key to read, not when to use the tool itself.
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.