Return the current on-chain USDi/USDC exchange rate, read live from the
USDi token contract's getExchangeRate() method. This rate reflects the
CPI-derived Reference CPI value (see get_usdi_mint_redeem_info for the
valuation mechanism), not a fixed peg.
| 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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the rate is read live from the contract, CPI-derived, and not a fixed peg, providing full transparency about the tool's behavior and output nature.
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, concise, and front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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), the description adequately explains what the tool does, the source of the rate, and references a related sibling for deeper context. No gaps.
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 coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per rubric, baseline is 4, and description adds nothing extra since there are no parameters to document.
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 the tool returns the current on-chain USDi/USDC exchange rate, sourced from the contract's getExchangeRate() method. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_usdi_mint_redeem_info for valuation details.
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 context that the rate is CPI-derived and not a fixed peg, and mentions a sibling tool for valuation mechanism. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs other siblings, though the context is clear.
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.