RWA Data MCP Server

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the paid-access model: $0.25 USDC per call, Solana mainnet settlement, and the challenge/response handshake. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and are not in the annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loading what the brief contains and then the payment mechanics. No filler and nothing buried.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so ('total + breakdown, insights, risks'), plus the full payment flow. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains topic selection and the omit-then-resubmit pattern for payment_signature. The description restates the payment flow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and its contents: a 'structured market brief' with 'total + breakdown, insights, risks.' An agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_metric or get_price, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit two-step usage: first call without payment_signature yields the challenge, then pay and re-call with the signature. That is clear procedural guidance. It omits when to prefer this brief over sibling tools like get_metric or verify_claim.

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

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

Discloses a pay-per-call cost ($0.05 USDC), the settlement network (Solana mainnet), and the challenge/response handshake — none of which the readOnlyHint annotation conveys. It stops short of stating failure modes, whether the challenge expires, or how payment is verified, so it is not a full 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and price, followed by the exact call sequence. Every clause carries information an agent needs to invoke it successfully.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, payment mechanics, and sequencing. It leaves open what a successful response looks like and what errors occur on unpaid or invalid signatures, which is a modest gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself already explains the payment_signature challenge flow and lists example metric names. The description largely restates that flow, adding only the price figure, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get one verified stablecoin/RWA market metric') with a concrete cost attached. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_price or get_peg, which an agent would have to infer from their own definitions.

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 an explicit two-step invocation protocol: call without payment_signature to receive the challenge, pay, then call again with the signature. That is real when/how guidance, but it offers no guidance on choosing this tool over get_price/get_peg/get_brief.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial context they don't cover: a $0.05 USDC cost per call and a two-step payment-challenge protocol on Solana mainnet. An agent knows it must expect a challenge response before it ever gets data, which prevents a failed first attempt.

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 resource and scope are front-loaded, then the payment protocol follows in order of execution. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a no-output-schema read tool, the call flow and cost are fully explained and annotations cover safety, so an agent can invoke it correctly. The only gap is that it never characterizes the returned peg data (e.g., price vs. deviation), which it could not derive from structured fields.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description restates the same two-phase semantics as the schema (first call without it returns the challenge, second call with it retrieves data), adding only minor emphasis on paying the exact USDC amount.

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 the exact resource and scope: 'All four tracked stablecoin pegs (usdt, usdc, usde, dai) in one call,' even enumerating the tokens. The 'all four ... in one call' framing implicitly but clearly separates it from the singular get_peg sibling.

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?

It gives concrete procedural guidance: omit payment_signature on the first call to get the challenge, pay, then call again with the signature. It does not, however, say when to choose this aggregate tool over get_peg or get_price, so alternatives are left to inference.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: per-call cost of $0.05 USDC, settlement on Solana mainnet, and the challenge-then-retry protocol. It doesn't cover failure modes (e.g., what happens on underpayment or an invalid signature), which keeps it 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, both load-bearing, with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the payment mechanics. The second sentence is dense but each clause (challenge, pay, retry with signature) is necessary.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('live price and deviation in basis points from $1.00'). Cost and the payment handshake are covered; error handling and whether the challenge expires are not, but nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%: both symbol (with allowed values) and payment_signature are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the payment flow but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and payload: stablecoin peg status with live price and deviation in basis points from $1.00. An agent immediately knows what it returns, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_price or get_monitor_pegs, which could plausibly overlap.

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?

Explicitly sequences the two-call payment flow: omit payment_signature first to get the challenge, then call again with the signature after paying. Clear operational context, but no guidance on when to pick this over get_price vs get_monitor_pegs.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the truly non-obvious behavior: this is a paid endpoint ($0.05 USDC per call) using a challenge/response protocol on Solana mainnet. That is a substantial addition. It stops short of covering failure modes, signature reuse, or timing, keeping it out of the top band.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and its cost, followed by the exact call sequence. Every clause carries load; nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description's 'with source proof' gives a useful hint at return content, and the payment protocol is fully explained. It is nearly complete, missing only return-format detail and error handling for a paid call.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both id (with examples) and payment_signature in detail, so the schema carries the burden. The description only reinforces the payment step ('pay the exact USDC on Solana') without adding new parameter semantics, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Point-in-time asset price') plus a distinguishing quality ('with source proof'), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not, however, contrast itself with near-siblings like get_peg or get_metric, leaving that differentiation implicit.

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 lays out the operational two-call flow (first call gets a challenge, pay, then call with payment_signature), which is genuine usage guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over get_metric/get_peg or any exclusion conditions, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the $0.10 USDC cost, the required Solana mainnet payment, the challenge/response handshake, and the three-valued verdict plus evidence/sources in the result. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outcome categories before the payment mechanics. The cost parenthetical is slightly awkwardly placed mid-sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the possible verdicts and stating that evidence and sources are returned, and it fully covers the payment prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the example claim and the omit-then-retry payment flow. The description largely restates that flow, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (verify) and resource (factual crypto-markets claim) plus the source of truth (sourced, dated claims cache), and enumerates the outcome space (confirmed/refuted/unverifiable). This clearly distinguishes it from the retrieval siblings get_price, get_metric, get_peg, etc.

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 explicit operational guidance for the two-step payment flow: first call without payment_signature yields a challenge, then call again with the signature after paying. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but for a paid verification endpoint the invocation context is unambiguous.

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