token_priceUSD spot price for any major token. By symbol or chain+contract. CoinGecko-backed, 60s cache. $0.001 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Chain slug: base, ethereum, solana, polygon, arbitrum, optimism, bsc, avalanche. Use with contract. | |
| symbol | No | Token symbol like 'ETH', 'BTC', 'SOL', 'USDC'. Mutually exclusive with chain+contract. | |
| contract | No | Token contract address. Requires chain. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: data source (CoinGecko), caching behavior (60s cache), cost ($0.001 USDC), and the coverage limitation (major tokens). This helps the agent understand performance, reliability, and cost implications without needing structured fields.
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?
The description is four short, imperative sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: scope, input modes, data source, and cost. There is zero waste.
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 simple read-only price lookup, the description covers the essential aspects: inputs, scope, cost, and data source. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but 'USD spot price' implies a numeric price. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail on the response shape would make it complete, but it is adequate.
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), and the symbol description already states mutual exclusivity with chain+contract. The description repeats this by saying 'By symbol or chain+contract' without adding new semantic details beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool provides USD spot price for major tokens, specifying input methods (symbol or chain+contract). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which are price-related. The purpose is immediately evident from the first sentence.
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 implies usage context: for fetching current spot prices, limited to major tokens. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tools offer similar functionality, so the absence is acceptable. The 'major token' scope and two input modes provide clear usage guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct function — anchoring, decoding, wallet intelligence, entertainment, etc. Even similar tools like decode_calldata vs decode_tx and intel_wallet vs screen_wallet are precisely separated by descriptions.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (anchor_hash, decode_calldata), but there are exceptions like aura_read (noun_verb), intel_wallet (noun_noun), and ledger_report (ambiguous). This mixed convention is readable but not fully consistent.
18 tools is slightly above the ideal range but not overwhelming. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count feels reasonable for the broad set of utilities offered.
The core utilities (anchoring, wallet intelligence, ledger accounting) are well-covered without obvious dead ends. Some domain-specific workflows could be expanded (e.g., verifying anchors), but the existing tools provide complete standalone operations.