Return USDi's on-chain identifiers: network, token contract address,
and the primary Uniswap V3 liquidity pool address. Use this to
disambiguate USDi from the unrelated "Interest Protocol" token, which
is incorrectly listed as USDi/USDI on some third-party sites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what is returned (identifiers) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or mention any permissions required, but for a simple read, this is adequate.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the return values and ends with the disambiguation context. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and why it is useful.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, achieving the baseline of 4.
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 explicitly states that the tool returns USDi's on-chain identifiers (network, token contract address, and Uniswap V3 pool address) and distinguishes it from a different token. This is a specific verb+resource statement that differentiates from sibling tools.
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 provides clear context: use this to disambiguate USDi from the unrelated 'Interest Protocol' token. The sibling tools (exchange rate and mint/redeem) are different, so the usage guidance is explicit.
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 targets a distinct aspect of USDi: contract identifiers, exchange rate, and mint/redeem process. There is no overlap, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent pattern: 'get_usdi_<specific_info>'. This makes the set predictable and easy for agents to navigate.
With only 3 tools, the server is narrowly scoped but covers the core informational needs about USDi. The count is appropriate given the focused domain, though slightly lean.
The server provides all necessary information about USDi: contract details, live exchange rate, and valuation/mint-redeem process. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of querying USDi information.