PHION RWA

rwa_nav_reserve

Compare declared NAV and reserve ratios with structured observed facts plus independently fetched evidence; returns discrepancies in basis points and fails closed on incomplete evidence; 0.015 USDC.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "asset": {
        "contract": "0x..."
      },
      "source_urls": [
        "https://issuer.example/nav",
        "https://oracle.example/reserves"
      ],
      "declared_facts": {
        "nav": "1.00",
        "reserve_ratio": 1
      }
    },
    "name": "rwa_nav_reserve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	Yes
`source_urls`	Yes
`tolerance_bps`	No
`declared_facts`	Yes
`observed_facts`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "asset": {
+      "contract": "0x..."
+    },
+    "declared_facts": {
+      "nav": "1.00",
+      "reserve_ratio": 1
+    },
+    "source_urls": [
+      "https://issuer.example/nav",
+      "https://oracle.example/reserves"
+    ]
+  }
+]

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose two real traits: it fails closed on incomplete evidence and costs 0.015 USDC. It omits permissions/auth, rate limits, what constitutes 'incomplete evidence', and how many sources are required, so the behavioral picture is only partially drawn.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence that delivers purpose, return format, failure semantics and price with no filler. The semicolon chain is compact but still readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, but for a 5-parameter, nested-object tool at 0% schema coverage the description leaves the agent without guidance on the parameter contract or evidence sufficiency rules. It should do considerably more given the complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, including nested objects (declared_facts, observed_facts) with required sub-fields, so the description must compensate and does not. Only a loose mapping is inferable (source_urls = 'independently fetched evidence'); tolerance_bps, asset, and the as_of/unit requirement are unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb (compare) and resource (declared NAV and reserve ratios vs. observed facts/evidence), which is far more informative than the sibling `rwa_asset_due_diligence` naming alone. It does not explicitly position itself against those siblings, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

It implies the situation (you have declared facts, observed facts and source URLs and want a discrepancy check) and notes it fails closed on incomplete evidence, which is a useful gating hint. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing to alternatives such as rwa_asset_due_diligence or rwa_compliance.

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

All PHION RWA tools Inspect

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

Need Help?