Get Prices
get_pricesCurrent USD prices for loan/collateral tokens (token address -> USD).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | No | Chain to target. Supported: 1, 4663. Default: 1. |
get_pricesCurrent USD prices for loan/collateral tokens (token address -> USD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | No | Chain to target. Supported: 1, 4663. Default: 1. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The tool has readOnlyHint=true in annotations, and the description adds additional context about returning current USD prices for specific tokens. No contradictions, and the description complements the annotation well.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its scope, requiring no additional information.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the optional chainId parameter.
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 states the tool provides current USD prices for loan/collateral tokens with a mapping from token address to USD. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are for building transactions or getting positions/strategies.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving token prices but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: building opening vs. managing transactions, reading positions, getting prices, listing/querying strategies, and simulating. No overlapping or ambiguous functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., build_leverage_tx, get_positions, list_strategies). The naming is predictable and uniform.
7 tools is well-scoped for the domain of non-custodial leverage positions. It covers all essential operations without being too few or excessive.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: preview (simulate), open (build_leverage_tx), manage (build_manage_tx with close/adjust actions), read positions, and explore strategies/prices. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.