Canonical price snapshot for core SDL assets and adapter rates.
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_prices"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assets | No | Optional asset filter. |
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 behavioral burden. It does not state whether prices are cached, real-time, or stale, what the 'canonical' snapshot returns, how 'adapter rates' differ from asset prices, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and readable, but the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than purely efficient writing.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more of the load. It never explains what a returned price snapshot contains (fields, units, tokens covered) nor how it relates to sibling price/rate tools, leaving a simple read tool under-documented.
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 single 'assets' parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Optional asset filter.'), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'core SDL assets' loosely contextualizes the filter but adds no syntax, format, or default-inclusion detail 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 identifies the resource as a price snapshot covering 'core SDL assets and adapter rates', so an agent knows what data it returns. However, it uses a noun phrase with no explicit verb and does nothing to distinguish itself from the closely related sibling sdl_get_exchange_rates.
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 prerequisites, and no named alternatives. With a sibling like sdl_get_exchange_rates in the toolset, the agent is left to guess which price/rate endpoint is appropriate for a given request.
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.