[FREE] Get AGWC token data — the native currency of AgentWorld on Base L2. Contract: 0xfa6071375b2bC079BF781D51906Beee0b6F53b0B (Base L2). Pool: 0x24235Fa9dab948E6fde2d2B369BDa08d598E8242 (Uniswap V2). Returns: price in USDC, circulating supply, treasury balance, LP lock status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the returned fields and identifies the underlying contracts, which is helpful. However, it does not mention rate limits, caching, potential errors, authentication needs, or explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation beyond the word 'Get'.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes only relevant details: the token's native context, contract and pool addresses, and the exact returned metrics. No filler 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 zero-parameter read-only token data tool, the description provides all essential context: what the token is, where it lives, the relevant contract addresses, and what data will be returned. The presence of an output schema covers the detailed return structure, so no additional explanation is needed.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Schema description coverage is 100%, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'AGWC token data', and identifies AGWC as the native currency of AgentWorld on Base L2 with the specific contract and pool addresses. This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like get_economy or data_catalog.
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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need AGWC token price, supply, treasury balance, or LP lock status. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools for similar token data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.