stLINK and wstLINK peg state from on chain exchange rate primitives.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sdl_get_peg"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the value is computed from on-chain exchange rate primitives (a read of derived state), but says nothing about return format, staleness, or failure behavior. For a no-parameter read tool this is adequate but thin.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the subject (the two tokens) is front-loaded. It is slightly dense with domain jargon, which costs a little clarity for a reader unfamiliar with the protocol.
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 zero-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate what the peg state represents (e.g. deviation from 1:1) or the shape of the result. It provides the data source only, leaving the return semantics unspecified.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no arguments whose meaning the description would need to clarify.
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 states a specific resource ('stLINK and wstLINK peg state') and its derivation ('from on chain exchange rate primitives'), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like sdl_get_exchange_rates. However, 'peg state' is protocol jargon with no plain-language gloss, and it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as sdl_get_exchange_rates, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the tool name.
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.