keel-mcp

Compare Stellar assets side by side

compare_assets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2 to 10 Keel assets side by side to assess collateral candidates: risk band and confidence, max safe collateral, 5% depth, flags, and ledger provenance in USDC.

Instructions

Side-by-side comparison of 2 to 10 assets: band and confidence, max safe collateral, depth at 5% on both sides, and fired flags, each with its own ledger. Useful for choosing between collateral candidates. Figures are all in USDC.

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": {
      "assetIds": "<assetIds>"
    },
    "name": "compare_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assetIds`	Yes	The assets to compare, as CODE:ISSUER or XLM.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It usefully adds that results span both sides of the book with separate ledgers and that all figures are denominated in USDC, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the comparison scope and the returned metrics, the second adds the decision context and unit convention. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing every metric produced, plus the USDC unit. It stops short of noting pagination or whether unknown asset ids are rejected, which is a minor gap for a read-only batch tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single assetIds parameter is fully documented there, including the CODE:ISSUER format. The description only restates the 2-10 cardinality already encoded as minItems/maxItems, adding no new parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('side-by-side comparison of 2 to 10 assets') with the exact comparison dimensions enumerated, so an agent can distinguish it from get_asset_risk or estimate_trade_depth without opening the schema.

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?

Offers implied usage ('useful for choosing between collateral candidates') but never states when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for single-asset or depth-only questions. The find_asset prerequisite is only mentioned in the schema, not the description.

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

Deploy Server