TokenBank — tokenized real-world assets

compare_tokenized_access

Read-onlyIdempotent

For a security tokenized by more than one issuer, return every token on it with a verdict on WHO MAY BUY each. This is the right tool for "which tokenized Apple should I buy?" — a question that cannot be answered from a token list, because the tokens differ mainly in eligibility. Hundreds of securities here are tokenized more than once — Apple exists as seven separate tokens — and in most of them the answer differs between them: one is offered to EU retail, another is gated to MiFID II professional clients, a third states nothing at all. The response carries the exact counts; do not quote a figure from this description. Call this before recommending any tokenized stock. Omit query to list every such security.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results (default 10)
`query`	No	Company name, underlying ticker or ISIN — e.g. "Apple", "AAPL", "US0378331005". Omit to list all.
`reach`	No	Only underlyings with at least one instrument of this reach. Use "retail" to find what a normal EU investor can buy.
`offset`	No	Skip this many matches before returning. Use the nextOffset from the previous answer to walk the whole set; its absence means you reached the end.
`split_only`	No	Only securities where the reach DIFFERS between their tokens — i.e. the company is buyable, but not through every token on it. Default false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`matched`	Yes
`nextOffset`	No	Pass as offset to fetch the next page; absent when there is no more
`underlyings`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context by warning that exact counts come from the response and that figures in the description should not be quoted. It also explains why results can differ between tokens on the same security, adding meaningful behavioral nuance.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the additional context around eligibility differences and the count-warning earns its place. The description is longer than average but every sentence contributes to correct selection or invocation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a full parameter schema, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description supplies the essential decision context, a clear scope definition, and practical usage advice. An agent has everything it needs to call this tool correctly and know what to do with the result.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema covers all 5 parameters at 100% with clear descriptions and examples, so the heavy lifting is already done there. The description mostly re-states the 'omit query to list all' behavior and adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's specific behavior: for a security tokenized by more than one issuer, it returns every token with a verdict on who may buy each. It goes beyond a generic comparison by emphasizing eligibility differences, reinforcing its unique purpose versus sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly identifies the target question ('which tokenized Apple should I buy?'), calls itself 'the right tool' for it, and instructs agents to call it before recommending any tokenized stock. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All TokenBank — tokenized real-world assets 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?