SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Asian Development Bank financing from ADB's official IATI

finance_asian_dev_bank_data

Read-only

Asian Development Bank financing (loans, grants, technical assistance) from ADB's official IATI data via d-portal.org: IATI activity id, ADB project number and link, title, recipient country, status, start/end dates, committed and disbursed USD, description. Filter by country (ISO2) and title words; newest start first. Open data, no key. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_bank_of_england_iadb when you need Bank of England official daily statistics for one series; finance_bcb_brazil_central_bank when you need Brazil Central Bank SGS time series: the latest N values. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "finance_asian_dev_bank_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Word or phrase contained in the project title, e.g. solar (optional, max 60 characters)
`limit`	No	How many financing records, 1 to 100 (default 20)
`country`	No	Recipient country ISO 3166 alpha-2 code, e.g. PK, IN, PH, BD, VN (optional)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`count`	No
`source`	No
`country`	No
`projects`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world nature, but the description adds real value beyond them: open data with no API key required, and a concrete payment model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls not charged). It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or how stale the IATI feed may be.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core verb, source, and returned fields, then routing, then pricing — a sensible order. The opening sentence is long and comma-dense, and the pricing/auth notes could be tightened, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-optional-parameter read-only query tool with an output schema, the definition covers source provenance, filter semantics, ordering, auth model, and cost — everything needed to decide and invoke. Return-value detail is delegated to the output schema, which exists.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds semantic mapping by clarifying that 'q' matches title words and 'country' is the recipient country ISO2 filter, and that results default to newest start date first (ordering not expressible as a parameter). The example ISO2 values and max-length are already in the schema, so the added value is modest.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Asian Development Bank financing (loans, grants, technical assistance)') plus the exact upstream source (d-portal.org IATI) and enumerates the returned fields (project number, country, status, committed/disbursed USD). An agent can distinguish this from every crypto/ticker sibling at a glance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete filtering guidance ('Filter by country (ISO2) and title words; newest start first') and explicitly routes two other needs (Bank of England single series, BCB Brazil SGS series) to their sibling tools. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when…' exclusion and does not compare against the nearer alternative finance_world_bank, which is the most likely confusion point.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?