Live cross-venue spot price with venue agreement and spread. A wide spread means venues disagree and any settlement in that range is contestable. Paid: $0.01 in USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Asset symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL | |
| payment_header | No | X-PAYMENT header from a settled x402 payment. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds cost ('$0.01 in USDC via x402'), the live nature, and the interpretive meaning of the spread, which enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.
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, front-loaded with the core function, followed by critical interpretation and cost. No filler words or redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, the meaning of spread, and the payment requirement. It does not specify the response format, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, though it does mention the payment requirement which relates to the payment_header parameter, but this is not a thorough explanation of each parameter.
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 identifies the tool as returning a live cross-venue spot price, with the explicit concept of venue agreement and spread. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on attestation, permits, and decisions.
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?
Provides usage context by explaining the significance of wide spreads ('any settlement in that range is contestable'), helping the agent decide when the price is reliable. It also notes the payment cost, but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct (e.g., get_crypto_spot vs. resolve_price_event), but attest_price_event and resolve_price_event both provide settlement verdicts, differing mainly in the signed record. The descriptions give enough guidance to choose correctly, so this is a minor overlap rather than a serious confusion.
All 10 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (attest_price_event, check_permit_activity, decode_decision_id, etc.). The verbs vary but are appropriate for each action, and there are no mixed conventions or stylistic deviations.
10 tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct domains: building permit intelligence and crypto price settlement. Each domain has a focused set of tools (e.g., permits: list, check, get, find; settlement: get spot, resolve, attest, verify, decode), and no tool feels superfluous.
The tool set provides full coverage for its stated purpose. For building permits, it offers jurisdiction discovery, activity summary, detailed verdicts, and project searches. For crypto settlements, it covers spot prices, settlement resolution, attestation, verification, and decision decoding, with no obvious dead-ends or missing lifecycle operations.