Quote the same USDC purchase across all issuers' tokenized versions of a stock and rank them by price paid per token. No API key needed.
Quote the same USDC buy for every issuer's token of one stock (e.g. xStock vs Ondo) and rank them by price paid per token. No API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usd | No | Amount of USDC, 1 to 250000, default 1000 | |
| symbol | Yes | Ticker, e.g. TSLA |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds behavior the annotations don't: it fans out across all issuers for a single stock, ranks results by price paid per token, and notes no API key is required.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the core comparison behavior is front-loaded and the auth note trails as a secondary detail. Every clause 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return concept (issuers ranked by effective price per token) and the cross-issuer scope. Minor gaps remain: no indication of how many issuers are compared or what fields each ranked entry contains.
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 coverage is 100%, with usd (1–250000, default 1000) and symbol fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond implying that the same usd amount is applied uniformly across issuers, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (quote), a precisely scoped resource (the same USDC buy across every issuer's token of one stock, e.g. xStock vs Ondo), and the output shape (ranked by price paid per token). The issuer-comparison framing clearly separates it from list_tokens and quote_sizes.
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 comparison use case is implied by 'compare' semantics and the 'xStock vs Ondo' example, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus quote_sizes (which presumably quotes varying sizes) or when NOT to use it. An agent must infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.