Returns tamper-resistant on-chain USD spot prices, 24h volatility, and Chainlink/TWAP oracle deviation metrics for major Base and EVM assets. Price: 0.010 USDC on Base or Solana.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| price_usd | Yes | ||
| confidence_bps | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence_bps": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "price_usd": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "symbol": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "symbol",
+ "price_usd",
+ "confidence_bps"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/open-world semantics, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a per-call cost of 0.010 USDC payable on Base or Solana, plus the tamper-resistant oracle sourcing. It omits failure modes (e.g., what happens on payment failure or unsupported symbol), so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads what is returned and for which asset universe, the second adds the critical payment constraint. Nothing is repeated from the annotations.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the payment/oracle context is supplied. However, for a single-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving the symbol format unspecified is a material gap for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'symbol' is undocumented in both schema and description. An agent cannot tell whether it expects a ticker (ETH), a pair (ETH/USD), or a contract address, and the description does nothing to resolve that ambiguity.
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 names a specific resource and outputs: on-chain USD spot prices, 24h volatility, and Chainlink/TWAP oracle deviation for Base/EVM assets. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like analyzeEvmWallet or inspectBaseToken, though it doesn't name an explicit alternative for price lookups.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope statement ('major Base and EVM assets'), but the description never states when to prefer this over getOndemandMarketSnapshot or getTokenHistoryAndSpread, nor does it state any prerequisites.
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.