Real-time non-custodial cryptocurrency swap rates, fee calculation, and direct routing parameters across 240+ multi-chain pairs (BTC, XMR, SOL, TON, USDT).
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools target completely different concerns: get_swap_quote performs pricing/routing calculations, while list_supported_currencies enumerates the asset catalog. Their descriptions are explicit about when to use each, leaving no realistic chance of misselection.
Both names follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_swap_quote, list_supported_currencies). The convention is predictable and would scale if more tools were added.
Two tools is thin even for a narrow quote-only service; there is no batch/compare endpoint, pair-detail lookup, or fee-breakdown tool. The count is defensible for the read-only scope but sits at the borderline of under-provisioned.
For its stated read-only quotation purpose, the surface covers the essential flow: discover assets, then get a quote with fees, limits, and routing. Gaps are minor (batch comparison, historical or cached-rate lookup, per-pair metadata) and workable around with repeated calls.
Calculates real-time cryptocurrency swap estimates, network fees, deposit limits, and on-chain routing parameters across 240+ multi-chain pairs. Quotes are cached for 30 seconds at the edge. Does not execute transactions or modify state (strictly read-only). Use this tool whenever a user asks to calculate, compare, or estimate an exchange rate between supported cryptocurrencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target cryptocurrency ticker symbol to receive (case-insensitive, e.g. XMR, BTC, USDT, SOL, TON). | |
| from | Yes | Source cryptocurrency ticker symbol (case-insensitive, e.g. BTC, XMR, SOL, TON, USDT, ETH, LTC, TRX, DOGE). | |
| amount | No | Positive numeric amount of source cryptocurrency to convert. Precision up to 8 decimal places. Rate limits apply per provider pool depth. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| to | No | |
| from | No | |
| rate | No | |
| amount | No | |
| provider | No | |
| swap_url | No | |
| max_amount | No | |
| min_amount | No | |
| updated_at | No | |
| network_fee | No | |
| within_limits | No | |
| receive_amount | No | |
| quote_validity_seconds | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the 30-second edge cache (freshness expectations) and the breadth of returned data (fees, limits, routing). It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes beyond the vague per-provider note in the schema.
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?
Three tight sentences: what it computes, the caching constraint, the safety profile, then a usage trigger. Everything is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema fields.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still previews the result contents (fees, deposit limits, routing). Combined with the read-only disclosure and caching note, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, with 'from', 'to' and 'amount' fully documented including examples, defaults, minimum and precision, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only indirect context ('240+ multi-chain pairs') and no syntax or format guidance beyond it — the baseline 3 is correct.
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 names a specific verb ('Calculates') and concrete resources (swap estimates, network fees, deposit limits, routing parameters) plus the scope (240+ multi-chain pairs). An agent can distinguish this from the only sibling, list_supported_currencies, because this one returns quotable rates rather than a currency 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?
'Use this tool whenever a user asks to calculate, compare, or estimate an exchange rate between supported cryptocurrencies' gives an explicit triggering condition. It also implicitly excludes execution ('Does not execute transactions'), but never names an alternative tool or states when a different quote source should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the complete catalog of supported blockchain assets, ticker symbols, network standards, and privacy routing capabilities on SafeSwapGlobal. Use this tool when a user asks which coins or networks are available for swapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | No | |
| currencies | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail (that privacy routing capabilities are included, implying a static reference catalog), but says nothing about caching, freshness, or result size. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate rather than rich.
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 return contents and followed by the usage condition. 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?
A zero-parameter, read-only catalog tool with an output schema that already documents the return shape. The description supplies purpose and usage context, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The listed items in the description are return-catalog contents, not inputs, so no parameter meaning is needed.
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?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and a well-scoped resource ('the complete catalog of supported blockchain assets, ticker symbols, network standards, and privacy routing capabilities'). An agent can instantly distinguish this enumerating tool from the sibling get_swap_quote, which retrieves a single quote.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this tool when a user asks which coins or networks are available for swapping.' It does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not condition, but with only one sibling (a quote tool) the routing is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_swap_quote5 fields changedInput schema / properties / amount / descriptionPrevious value: -"Amount of source currency to send for conversion. Positive numeric value."New value: +"Positive numeric amount of source cryptocurrency to convert. Precision up to 8 decimal places. Rate limits apply per provider pool depth."Input schema / properties / amount / minimumAdded value: +1e-8Input schema / properties / from / descriptionPrevious value: -"Source cryptocurrency ticker symbol. Must be a valid supported asset ticker such as BTC, XMR, SOL, TON, USDT, or ETH."New value: +"Source cryptocurrency ticker symbol (case-insensitive, e.g. BTC, XMR, SOL, TON, USDT, ETH, LTC, TRX, DOGE)."Input schema / properties / to / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target cryptocurrency ticker symbol that user wants to receive, such as XMR, BTC, USDT, or SOL."New value: +"Target cryptocurrency ticker symbol to receive (case-insensitive, e.g. XMR, BTC, USDT, SOL, TON)."Output schema / properties / quote_validity_secondsAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}list_supported_currenciesget_swap_quote
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.