Dollar price of KTA from the deepest pool, with 1-hour and 24-hour change. Not a forecast. Free.
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": "get_price"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the price is sourced from the deepest pool (a liquidity-weighting choice that affects the number returned), the return carries 1h and 24h deltas, and 'Free' signals no charge or auth step. It does not discuss staleness or failure behavior.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope. Every clause carries information: source of truth, return contents, non-forecast disclaimer, and cost. No waste.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of saying what comes back (price plus 1h/24h change). For a zero-argument read tool that is close to sufficient; only freshness/latency of the pool quote is left unstated.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed; there is nothing further 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?
States a specific resource (dollar price of KTA) and its data source (the deepest pool), plus what accompanies it (1h/24h change). 'Not a forecast' rules out a whole class of misinterpretation. It stops short of naming a sibling such as quote_prices or get_token, so an agent must infer the split.
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?
'Not a forecast' and 'Free' imply the usage context (spot price, no payment/x402 cost) but give no explicit when-to-use rule or named alternative among quote_prices, quote_prices_crossings, or get_token. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.