Skip to main content
Glama

AgentFeed

by io.github.seekdaseek
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

SPL token metadata

get_token_metadata
Read-onlyIdempotent

SPL token metadata: name, symbol, URI, decimals, supply, mint and freeze authority, mutability. Read from the mint account and its metadata account. Costs 0.005 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum or Arc).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYesSPL token mint address (base58)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesthe get_token_metadata payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_token_metadata
toolYesthe tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "the get_token_metadata payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_token_metadata",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "const": "get_token_metadata",
+      "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tool",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the data source (mint account plus its metadata account) and the per-call cost with the accepted payment rails (0.005 USDC via x402 on Solana/Base/Polygon/Arbitrum/Arc). That cost/auth detail is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke.

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?

Three tight sentences with the data contents front-loaded, followed by source and cost. Zero filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies source and cost, making it largely complete for a single-parameter read tool; the only gap is sibling differentiation.

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% and the single 'mint' parameter is documented as a base58 SPL token mint address in the schema itself. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (SPL token metadata) and enumerates the returned fields (name, symbol, URI, decimals, supply, authorities, mutability). An agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as get_token_holders, get_token_risk, or get_sol_token_check, so it falls 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The field list implies when this tool is appropriate (fetching static mint metadata), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is left to inference rather than stated.

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

All AgentFeed toolsInspect
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