trollbridge-mcp

bridge_prices

Fetch spot prices for BTC, ETH, SOL, and USDC via a paid x402 call on Base or Solana; if payment is missing, return 402 instructions instead of data.

Instructions

Mini's TrollBridge — spot crypto prices: BTC, ETH, SOL, USDC. TOLLED: $0.02 USDC per call on Base or Solana via x402. If you cannot pay, this tool returns the 402 payment instructions instead of data. No params.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bridge_prices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the tolled cost ($0.02 USDC), the accepted chains/payment rail (Base or Solana via x402), and the critical failure behavior that an unpaid call returns 402 payment instructions instead of data. It stops short of describing rate limits, caching, or the exact return shape.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the resource (spot prices), then the cost, payment rail, failure mode, and arity. No sentence is wasted and the critical toll warning is prominent.

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 zero-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, payment mechanism, and failure behavior. The one gap is the shape/contents of a successful response, which would help an agent interpret results, but everything needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly states 'No params,' matching the empty schema. With no parameters there is nothing further to specify, so the baseline of 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: spot crypto prices for BTC, ETH, SOL, USDC, which an agent can distinguish from sibling price/market tools like bridge_gas and bridge_markets by the asset class covered. It is clear about what it fetches, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling by name.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent learns this is used to get spot prices, and learns the payment precondition and the 402 fallback, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as bridge_gas or bridge_token_check.

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

Deploy Server