Skip to main content
Glama
fletch-now

fletch-mcp

Official
by fletch-now

Get one asset by ticker

get_asset

Retrieve full registry data for a token by symbol: address, trust, live state, history, corporate actions, DEX pools, Chainlink rounds. Validates an asset before you use its address.

Instructions

One asset with everything the registry knows: address, trust, live state, multiplier history, mints and burns, daily supply reconciliation, corporate actions, the issuer's control-plane events touching it, lookalike tokens that borrow its ticker, and the last 30 Chainlink rounds. Use this before writing any address into code. state.dex is the pool the DEX price and premium are read from: venue names the DEX (uniswap_v4 or uniswap_v3), poolId is a 32-byte pool id on v4 and a 20-byte pool address on v3, and depthUsd is how many dollars of the quote move that pool's price 1% — the figure the deepest pool is chosen by, since Uniswap's raw liquidity compares two pools only when they hold the same pair. The pools tool names the venue of every pool, that one included.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesTicker, e.g. TSLA

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does impressive work, explaining what state.dex contains and how depthUsd semantically differs from raw Uniswap liquidity: 'the figure the deepest pool is chosen by, since Uniswap's raw liquidity compares two pools only when they hold the same pair.' It doesn't state return envelope structure, pagination, or error handling, but given no annotations and the rich existing content, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long, but every sentence earns its place: the lead sentence enumerates the data payload, the second gives a use case, and the rest explains a subtle but critical output detail (pool depth vs raw liquidity). The state.dex explanation is slightly dense but still substantive. The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose before technical nuance.

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 registry lookup, the description is nearly complete. The tool has no output schema, so explaining what the asset object contains is essential, and it does. The only gap is that it doesn't describe what happens when a ticker has no match or when multiple lookalikes exist, but the presence of the lookalikes field and sibling tool list covers that partially. Overall, the description gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly and understand its response.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the ticker parameter. The description adds usage intent ('Use this before writing any address into code') and clarifies that the symbol is a ticker with an example. It also adds meaning to the larger data model (state.dex venue/poolId/depthUsd), which indirectly helps an agent understand output semantics. With complete schema coverage and this additive context, 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'One asset with everything the registry knows' and then enumerates a comprehensive list of what's included (address, trust, live state, multiplier history, mints/burns, reconciliation, corporate actions, control-plane events, lookalikes, Chainlink rounds). It also explicitly identifies the ticker parameter, so an agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like list_assets or history.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives direct usage guidance: 'Use this before writing any address into code.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool and implies its role as a foundational verification step. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly referencing the pools tool: 'The pools tool names the venue of every pool, that one included' — a clear pointer to an alternative for pool-level lookups.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fletch-now/fletch-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server