Retrieve Stellar asset metadata including supply, account balances, and flags. Specify the asset code to obtain essential details for informed decision-making.
Get metadata for a Stellar asset including supply, accounts, and flags
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assetCode | Yes | Asset code (e.g. USDC, XLM) | |
| assetIssuer | No | Asset issuer address (not needed for XLM) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the listed result fields communicate what the caller can expect. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or response formatting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise, scannable, and every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 two parameters and full schema coverage, the description and schema together provide enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. An explicit output schema or error details would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both assetCode and assetIssuer are already documented at the schema level. The description adds no deeper parameter semantics; its mention of supply, accounts, and flags describes output content rather than input behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get metadata for a Stellar asset' and lists the content categories (supply, accounts, flags). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the sibling account/transaction/orderbook tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when asset metadata such as supply, accounts, and flags is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the resource-focused scope leaves little ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.