List supported collateral assets on Arcadia. Returns compact list (address, symbol, decimals, type). Use search to filter by symbol substring. For USD prices, use read_asset_prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Filter assets by symbol (case-insensitive substring match) | |
| chain_id | No | Chain ID: 8453 (Base), 130 (Unichain), 10 (Optimism), or 4663 (Robinhood) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| assets | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / properties / assets / items / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "address",
+ "symbol",
+ "decimals",
+ "type"
+]Input schema / properties / chain_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Chain ID: 8453 (Base), 130 (Unichain), or 10 (Optimism)"New value: +"Chain ID: 8453 (Base), 130 (Unichain), 10 (Optimism), or 4663 (Robinhood)"Input schema / properties / chain_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Chain ID: 8453 (Base) or 130 (Unichain)"New value: +"Chain ID: 8453 (Base), 130 (Unichain), or 10 (Optimism)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope ('supported collateral assets') and hints at return shape ('compact list'), but says nothing about pagination limits, completeness of the list, or chain behavior beyond the schema default.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return shape and routing. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information with no redundancy or filler.
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?
With a full output schema, rich annotations, and complete parameter descriptions, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only modest gap is guidance on whether the returned list is exhaustive and whether chain_id changes the result set meaningfully.
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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the chain ID enum values. The description's 'use search to filter by symbol substring' merely restates the schema's 'case-insensitive substring match' and adds no new syntax or constraint information.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List supported collateral assets on Arcadia') and explicitly separates itself from the pricing sibling by name. An agent can distinguish it from read_asset_prices and the pool/strategy list tools without reading any schema.
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?
Gives a concrete routing rule ('For USD prices, use read_asset_prices') and explains the search parameter's purpose. It lacks an explicit when-not condition (e.g. for non-collateral or wallet-held assets), but the alternative is clearly named.
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.