Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rwa-attest

rwa-attest

by defibabylon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_rwa_protocol_detail

Retrieve detailed analytics for a real-world asset protocol including TVL, momentum, chain distribution, segment, and signed trust attestation status.

Instructions

Detailed view of a specific RWA protocol: TVL, momentum, chain spread, segment classification, and whether a signed trust attestation is available for it on this server.

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": {
      "protocol_name": "<protocol_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_rwa_protocol_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
protocol_nameYesRWA protocol name (e.g. 'BlackRock BUIDL', 'Ondo OUSG', 'Maple', 'Centrifuge')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific data fields and implies it is a read operation (consistent with get verb). However, it does not mention potential error conditions or required permissions.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose and content. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the key fields returned, providing sufficient completeness. It could mention that the output is an object, but the current level is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description and examples for protocol_name. The tool description does not need to add more, but the schema itself is informative. The baseline is 3, elevated due to good examples.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a detailed view of a specific RWA protocol, listing the information it provides (TVL, momentum, chain spread, segment classification, attestation availability). It is distinct from siblings like get_rwa_landscape and get_signed_rwa_attestation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list and context imply it is for single-protocol detail, there is no explicit guidance on usage context or 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools