Sera MCP Server

Official

by sera-cx

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, e.g., get_wallet_balances vs get_exchange_balance clearly separate wallet and vault balances. However, get_swap_quote, get_clob_swap_quote, and get_exchange_rate all return pricing/rate information, which could confuse an agent. Descriptions help differentiate, but the boundary is not immediately obvious.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get, execute, prepare, place, cancel, search). Modifiers are coherent, such as get_market, get_coin_history, and get_exchange_balance, with no mixed conventions like camelCase or arbitrary verbs.
Tool Count4/5
With 20 tools, the set is slightly heavy but each tool serves a clear function in market data, wallet/exchange balances, swaps, deposits/withdrawals, and orders. For a DeFi trading server, this count is reasonable and not overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle is covered: exploring stablecoins, checking balances, obtaining quotes, executing swaps/deposits/withdrawals, and managing limit orders. Minor gaps include no order history or transaction status, but these are not critical for basic trading.
Average 3.7/5 across 20 of 20 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects (e.g., order becomes inactive), reversibility, error conditions (e.g., if order is already canceled), or permissions required. The tool is a mutation but no such context is given.
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, concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, effectively conveying the purpose in minimal 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 tool is simple, and the description covers the basic action and parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on behavior after cancellation, failure modes, or validation. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in contextual depth.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, each with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 action ('Cancel') and the resource ('open order') along with the key identifier ('order ID'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_limit_order or get_open_orders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions such as the order being open. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states intent. It does not disclose whether 'prepare' actually moves funds, returns a signed transaction, or has side effects, auth requirements, or return value.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the action and purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too thin for a tool that prepares an action. It lacks output/return information, does not clarify whether execution happens, and gives no workflow context linking it to execute_deposit.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the wallet-to-exchange context, helping identify owner_address as the source, but does not meaningfully extend token/amount semantics.
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 ('prepare') and resource ('deposit transaction') plus source/destination ('wallet to exchange balance'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like execute_deposit and prepare_withdraw.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_deposit or prepare_withdraw. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the two-step workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns all pairs where token can be swapped, which is a clear read behavior, but it does not disclose auth requirements, pagination, or any side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 two short sentences, both necessary and informative. It states the core action and the result, with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It conceptually does ('Returns all pairs where the token can be swapped') but lacks details on response structure, market status, pagination, or limitations. This is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for token_address, so the schema already explains the parameter. The description does not add any extra semantics about parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'trading pairs/markets for a specific token', clearly indicating it returns swap pairs for a token. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'get_market', but the scope of 'all pairs where the token can be swapped' helps clarify its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the private key requirement, but does not state that this is an irreversible, state-changing transaction, that gas fees apply, or that funds are permanently moved. For a high-stakes financial operation, this is a significant gap.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. The private key requirement is relevant and concisely stated, with zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the execution flow, such as referencing prepare_withdraw, indicating reversibility, or noting possible outcomes. The current description is too brief for the complexity and risk involved.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters ('amount' and 'token_address') already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a withdrawal to move funds from exchange back to wallet.' This clearly distinguishes it from prepare_withdraw (preparation step) and other execution tools like execute_deposit or execute_swap.
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 as the execution step for withdrawals, but it does not explicitly say 'use after prepare_withdraw' or mention when not to use it. There is no explicit exclusion of alternatives, though the naming and context make the intended use reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns expected output amount, rate, and fees, which implies a read-only quote. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not execute the swap or whether the quote is indicative/expiring, which are important behavioral traits. It provides some transparency but not full.
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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and immediately lists the key returned data. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It mentions the return values, which is essential. However, it misses the opportunity to clarify how this relates to the sibling 'get_clob_swap_quote' and whether the quote is firm or indicative, but these are not critical gaps for a basic quote tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on how the parameters interact or provide contextual usage examples. The schema already thoroughly describes each parameter, so the description adds no extra semantic value.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a price quote for swapping between two tokens' with specific outputs (expected output amount, rate, fees). It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_clob_swap_quote', so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_clob_swap_quote' or 'prepare_swap'. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the '1 unit' scaling detail; it does not explain whether the rate includes fees, is a mid-market price, or has other assumptions. This leaves important behavioral characteristics undisclosed.
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 two sentences, front-loads the main action, and includes no filler. Every phrase earns its place by clarifying the rate direction.
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?
This is a simple lookup tool with a well-specified schema, but no output schema is provided. The description does not specify the return format (e.g., integer vs decimal, precision), and lacks caveats such as live vs stale rates. Given the simplicity, it's adequate but leaves some gaps.
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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds directional meaning by specifying the rate is for swapping 1 unit of from_token to to_token, which clarifies how decimals and token addresses are used. This value bumps it above baseline.
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 identifies the tool as getting an exchange rate between two tokens, with a specific verb and resource. It also defines the rate as 'swapping 1 unit of from_token to to_token,' which distinguishes it from generic market data or swap quoting tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as get_swap_quote or get_market. There is no mention of scenarios, limitations, or exclusions, so an agent has to infer fit from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe the return format, or mention potential behaviors like returning null for unknown tickers. The description lists content fields but adds little beyond what is already obvious from the tool name.
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 object ('Get detailed metadata'), then efficiently enumerates the categories of data included. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, this description is fairly complete. It clearly explains what the tool returns (metadata fields) and implies the input requirement. While it could mention that the ticker should match ones from search_coins or discuss error handling, the low complexity and straightforward nature make the current description 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 fully documents the 'ticker' parameter with an example and case-insensitivity note (100% schema coverage). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It correctly implies the ticker is required and identifies the target coin.
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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata for a specific stablecoin'). It enumerates the types of metadata included (description, blockchains, platforms, regulatory info, issuer details, social links), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market or get_coin_history that focus on market data or historical data respectively.
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 need metadata for a known stablecoin ('for a specific stablecoin' suggests you must provide a ticker). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_coins, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical security requirement (WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY) and the general side effect of moving funds. However, it does not mention reversibility, network fees, failure modes, or response behavior, leaving notable gaps for a financial transaction.
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 two concise sentences: an action statement and a prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundant wording.
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?
For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and key requirement but omits return-value behavior and side effects. It is adequate but not fully contextual, especially given the existence of a prepare_deposit sibling.
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 provides 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions ('Amount to deposit' and 'Token to deposit'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb and resource: 'Execute a deposit to move funds from wallet to exchange.' It distinguishes the direction from sibling execute_withdraw and implies execution rather than preparation, making the 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 gives context that this tool is for moving funds from wallet to exchange and mentions a prerequisite (WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY), but it does not explicitly guide when to use this over other sibling tools like prepare_deposit or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clarifies it only prepares the transaction and does not execute it, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on side effects, whether funds are locked, or what is returned, which is important for a non-executing preparation tool.
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, concise sentence that clearly front-loads the action ('prepare'), the resource ('withdrawal transaction'), and the purpose, with no unnecessary 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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the prepared transaction looks like and how to proceed (e.g., calling execute_withdraw). It does not, leaving the workflow ambiguous. The tool is part of a larger withdrawal process with sibling tools, but this is not addressed.
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 descriptions cover all three parameters (token_address, amount, owner_address) at 100% coverage with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states it prepares a withdrawal transaction to move funds from exchange balance back to wallet. The verb 'prepare' distinguishes it from execute_withdraw, and 'from exchange balance back to wallet' differentiates it from prepare_deposit.
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 word 'prepare' implies it is a preliminary step before executing a withdrawal, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus execute_withdraw or that execute_withdraw must follow. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does mention that the amount is in human-readable units and will be converted, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or that it does not execute the swap, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a critical usage detail. There is no fluff or repetitive information, making it highly efficient.
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 simple quote tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential information: what it does, the key output (exchange rate), and an important input format detail. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention whether fees or other quote details are included.
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 already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description's note about human-readable units is helpful but redundant as it duplicates the schema's own parameter description. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 function with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('swap quote from the CLOB exchange'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'CLOB', which differentiates it from generic swap quote tools.
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 this tool is for obtaining a quote on the CLOB exchange, which provides some context for its use. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with alternatives like get_swap_quote or explain when to choose one over the other, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 it uses the wallet address from WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY and returns stablecoin holdings, but does not mention pagination, the restriction to querying only your own balances (though mentioned in schema), or any error behavior.
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, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds context: what it returns and address source. 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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return type ('stablecoin holdings with amounts and metadata'), and default address behavior. It lacks explicit return structure or pagination details, but schema covers parameters. It's reasonably complete for selecting this tool over siblings.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for page, page_size, and wallet_address. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the configured wallet behavior, so baseline 3 applies.
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 explicitly states 'Get token balances for the configured wallet' with a clear verb and resource. It further specifies it returns 'all stablecoin holdings with amounts and metadata,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_exchange_balance and get_wallet_info.
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 provide explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It implies usage for checking stablecoin balances in the configured wallet, but does not exclude other balance-related tools or state conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns matching coins, implying a read-only search, but it does not add details like case sensitivity, fuzzy matching, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The description is truthful but minimal, offering limited context beyond the obvious.
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 two sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately explains the return value, making it concise and well-structured.
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 (2 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: it explains what the tool searches and that it returns matches. It could be improved by describing the return structure or fields, but for a simple search tool, it is mostly complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions searching by name or ticker, which aligns with the query parameter, but it does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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: to search for stablecoins by name or ticker. The verb 'search' and resource 'stablecoins' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like get_coin_metadata or get_market. It precisely conveys what the tool does.
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 that this tool is for searching coins when you have a name or ticker, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage context is implied by the verb 'search' but lacks explicit guidance on 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the fill condition and that an order is created, but omits order lifecycle details (e.g., order stays open until filled or cancelled, funds reservation, cancellation mechanism) and potential risks.
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 concise sentences that front-load the verb and resource. No redundant information, and the parenthetical 'set your own rate' adds useful clarification without bloat.
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 captures the core behavior but is under-specified for a financial tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not mention order expiration, how to track the order, or what happens to funds while the order is open.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that 'price' is your desired rate.
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 identifies the action: placing a limit order, and clarifies the mechanism (set your own rate, filled when market reaches your price). This distinguishes it from market-order/swap tools among siblings.
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 implies use when you want to set a specific rate and wait for the market to reach it, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not send the transaction directly (requires signing/sending) and may return an approval_needed flag. However, it does not describe the return structure, error handling, or whether the tool performs any on-chain reads. This is partial disclosure, leaving gaps about permissions and failure modes.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value: 'Prepare a swap transaction', 'Returns transaction data that needs to be signed and sent', and 'May return approval_needed...' No filler or repetition.
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 tool has 6 required parameters and no output schema. The description explains the main return (transaction data) and a conditional (approval_needed), but lacks details on the structure of the returned data, how to interpret it, and any additional fields. For a preparation tool, this is a moderate level of completeness but insufficient for complex integration without further documentation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; the schema already provides clear, basic descriptions like 'Destination token address' and 'Source token address'. The tool description focuses on behavior, not parameter semantics.
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 function: 'Prepare a swap transaction.' It further specifies that it returns transaction data to be signed and sent, distinguishing it from siblings like execute_swap and get_swap_quote. The verb 'prepare' and resource 'swap transaction' are specific and unambiguous.
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 provides clear context: the output is transaction data that must be signed and sent, indicating this is a pre-execution step. It also mentions that approval_needed may be returned if allowance is insufficient, giving a conditional prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases for when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('timestamp and price pairs') but does not elaborate on other aspects like data source, rate limits, or handling of non-stablecoin tickers. This is adequate for a simple read operation but not rich.
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, succinct sentence that directly states the function, scope, and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple read tool with only two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and output format, and the schema handles parameter details. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and a detailed output structure, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 describes both parameters (ticker and days) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the stablecoin scope, so it does not improve on the schema.
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 ('Get'), identifies the resource ('historical price data'), and scopes it to 'a specific stablecoin.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market or get_coin_metadata by emphasizing the historical aspect.
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 phrase 'suitable for sparklines or charts' provides a clear usage context, indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, slightly limiting the guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It does indicate the tool is a read operation (via 'Get') and mentions the configured wallet dependency. However, it doesn't explicitly disclose authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether any side effects occur, though the nature of a balance query makes this less critical.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value—especially the clarification separating exchange balance from wallet balance. No redundant filler.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains the difference from wallet balance and the configuration dependency. It doesn't detail the return format, but for a balance lookup this is not a major gap; still, a brief mention of the response could improve completeness.
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 already fully describes the single optional parameter with 100% coverage, including the fallback to WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY. The description repeats this information but adds no new parameter-specific semantics; therefore, baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the exchange (vault) balance for a configured wallet. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'exchange balance', and explicitly distinguishes this from wallet balance, which separates it from sibling tools like get_wallet_balances.
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 provides clear context that this tool targets exchange balance, not wallet balance, and notes that it uses the wallet address from WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use', the distinction is strong enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that data is live and the response includes a catalogue and market metrics, plus optional pagination. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what 'complete' means, but for a read-only list endpoint this is acceptable though not rich.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose and key data fields, then pagination note. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with two optional params and no output schema. The description covers what data is returned (stablecoin catalogue with market metrics) and pagination usage. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could mention the response format slightly more explicitly.
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 describes both parameters (page, per_page) with clear meanings and defaults. The description adds only 'Supports pagination,' which slightly reinforces but does not add new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool gets a stablecoin catalogue with live market data including specific metrics (price, market cap, volume, 24h changes). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like get_coin_history or get_trading_pairs.
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 implies when to use it: when you need the complete stablecoin catalogue with market data. It also notes pagination support, setting expectations for large result sets. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, though the scope is clear enough for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool uses the wallet address from WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, which is a relevant config dependency. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects, though as a 'get' operation it is likely read-only. The description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.
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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and no redundant text. Every word serves a function.
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 and the presence of a single optional parameter with full schema description, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and default behavior. However, the lack of any mention of return format or potential filters slightly reduces completeness.
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 for the single optional parameter, and the description reiterates the same default behavior already in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('all open/pending orders') and scope ('for the configured wallet'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like place_limit_order and cancel_order, which are operations, and get_wallet_balances, which retrieves balances.
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 provides clear context that the tool uses the configured wallet by default, and the parameter description offers the alternative of providing an explicit wallet_address. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, though the tool's purpose is fairly unique among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the private key requirement and specifies the returned fields, but does not disclose error handling, read-only nature, or side effects. This is basic but not rich context.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the key requirement without any wasted 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 simple getter, the description covers the output fields (address, balance, chain) and the setting requirement. However, it omits failure modes or differentiation from the sibling get_wallet_balances, so it's slightly incomplete.
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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, a 0-param tool receives a baseline of 4 since there are no parameters to explain.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get information about the configured wallet (address, balance, chain)' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_wallet_balances by covering broader wallet info beyond just balances.
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?
Provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY to be set') but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wallet_balances or get_exchange_balance. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose but no exclusionary guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important side effects such as sending an on-chain approve transaction for non-permit tokens, signing an EIP-712 intent, and submitting the transaction, plus the private key requirement. This gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior, though it does not mention gas costs or transaction confirmation behavior.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds essential information about the flow and requirements. There is no fluff or redundant content.
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 transaction-executing tool with side effects and no output schema, the description covers the main steps (approval, signing, submission), prerequisites, and the internal quote step. However, it does not clarify the relationship to prepare_swap or describe the return value, so it is not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; it only references tokens and amount generically. Thus, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
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 'Execute a swap transaction' and outlines the full flow including quote retrieval, approval handling, EIP-712 signing, and submission. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_swap_quote and prepare_swap, which are not full execution 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 provides clear context by indicating the tool handles the entire swap process internally, including getting a quote, so users know they don't need to call get_swap_quote separately. It also states a key prerequisite: 'Requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over prepare_swap or when to avoid it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sera-mcp-v2 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sera-cx/sera-mcp-v2/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sera-cx/sera-mcp-v2)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sera-mcp-v2 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sera-cx/sera-mcp-v2/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sera-cx/sera-mcp-v2)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/sera-cx/sera-mcp-v2'

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