boo-x402-mcp

by lucle87

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Stablecoin peg monitor

stablecoin_peg

Verify stablecoin peg status and market cap to detect depeg events. Enter an optional symbol for precise monitoring.

Instructions

Peg status and market cap of stablecoins. Use to detect a depeg event.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 USDC per call (x402 on Base). Paid automatically from your configured wallet.

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": "stablecoin_peg"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	No	Optional stablecoin symbol (USDC, USDT, DAI...).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It adds behavioral information about cost ('up to $0.01 USDC per call') but lacks details on data freshness, output format, or rate limits.

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 sentences plus a payment note, all front-loaded with essential information. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the basic purpose and usage, but does not explain 'peg status' or return format. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, which already lists example symbols.

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's purpose: 'Peg status and market cap of stablecoins.' The title 'Stablecoin peg monitor' aligns with this, and it is distinctive from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use to detect a depeg event,' providing a clear use case. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the context is well-defined.

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