RWA Data MCP Server

get_metric

Read-only

Get one verified stablecoin/RWA market metric ($0.01 USDC per call). First call (no payment_signature) returns the payment challenge; pay the exact USDC on Solana, then call again with payment_signature.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Metric name, e.g. stablecoin_market_cap, rwa_total_value, agent_x402_volume_usd, top_yield_opportunities
`payment_signature`	No	Optional. Omit on the first call to receive the payment challenge. After sending the exact USDC amount on Solana mainnet to the pay_to wallet, call again with this set to the Solana transaction signature of your payment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description discloses cost ($0.01 USDC per call), the payment rail (USDC on Solana), and the mandatory two-call challenge/retry sequence. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry, and it is fully consistent with the read-only hint.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Purpose and cost come first, then the invocation sequence, so the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some return-value burden; it explains the first-call return (payment challenge) but not the shape of the metric payload itself. For a paid tool the critical flow is covered, so this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 documented in the schema, including the first-call/retry semantics of payment_signature. The description reinforces the flow and adds the price, but contributes no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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') and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('verified'), which separates it from vague siblings like get_price or get_peg. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

The two-step payment flow is spelled out precisely: call without payment_signature to get the challenge, pay, then call again with the signature. That is strong operational guidance. What is missing is any when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance relative to get_price, get_peg, or get_monitor_pegs.

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

All RWA Data MCP Server 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?