UluAlgorandMCP

identify_asset

Identify Algorand assets by ID to retrieve name, symbol, type, protocol association, and tags. Resolve asset details without on-chain queries.

Instructions

Identify an Algorand asset by ID — returns name, symbol, type, protocol association, and tags if known

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": {
      "assetId": "<assetId>"
    },
    "name": "identify_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assetId`	Yes	Asset ID on Algorand (0 for ALGO)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the returned fields and adds a useful caveat ('if known'), implying some data may be absent. It also implies a read-only operation through the verb 'identify', though it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or error handling.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists expected outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return values and purpose. It could optionally mention error behavior or the meaning of 'protocol association', but for a lookup tool this is sufficient.

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 input schema already fully documents the sole parameter (assetId: 'Asset ID on Algorand (0 for ALGO)'), so the description adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('Algorand asset by ID'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like identify_application or get_protocol. It also states the intended output fields (name, symbol, type, protocol association, tags), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description implies usage ('when you have an asset ID and want metadata') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or when-not guidance, but the context is reasonably clear for a simple lookup tool.

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

Deploy Server