StellarMCP

stellar_get_sep38_quote

Retrieve a SEP-38 indicative quote for converting between two assets, returning rate metadata.

Instructions

Request a SEP-38 indicative quote and return rate metadata.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sellAsset": "<sellAsset>",
      "buyAsset": "<buyAsset>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "stellar_get_sep38_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sellAsset`	Yes	SEP-38 sell asset string, e.g. stellar:USDC:G...
`buyAsset`	Yes	SEP-38 buy asset string, e.g. iso4217:BRL
`amount`	Yes	Sell amount as decimal string

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates the quote is 'indicative,' which usefully communicates that this is a non-binding quote request rather than an executed transaction. However, it does not clarify side effects, prerequisites, expiration, or that this is an off-chain anchor interaction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and outcome, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for a simple quote-request tool with fully documented parameters, but it lacks context about SEP-38's role, whether the quote is off-chain, or what kind of response details to expect. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description to explain the return value, and 'rate metadata' is only a partial explanation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: request a SEP-38 indicative quote and return associated rate metadata. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other SEP protocols or Stellar operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as SEP-6, SEP-24, or SEP-31 tools. The only signal is the SEP-38 name itself, which implies but does not state the intended context.

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