get_usdi_mint_redeem_info
Return USDi's valuation mechanism and mint/redeem process — how to obtain or redeem USDi, and how its CPI-linked value is computed.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
usdi-mcp-server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the information returned but mentions no behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authorization needs, rate limits). The tool is likely a simple info retrieval, but transparency is moderate.
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?
Single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. No extraneous words.
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?
Covers the main purpose adequately given zero parameters and no output schema. Could differentiate from siblings but not essential for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none.
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 uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'USDi's valuation mechanism and mint/redeem process'. It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_usdi_contract_info and get_usdi_exchange_rate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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 aspect of USDi: contract identifiers, exchange rate, and mint/redeem process. There is no overlap, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent pattern: 'get_usdi_<specific_info>'. This makes the set predictable and easy for agents to navigate.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.