Quote a currency conversion into USDC with spread (e.g. COP->USDC, USD->USDC). Get stablecoin exchange rates. input=' '. [x402: 0.001 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Cadena '<monto> <origen> <destino>', ej. '100000 COP USDC' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that quotes include a spread and that each call costs 0.001 USDC on Base on a pay-per-use basis. It also uses 'Quote', implying a read-only quote rather than an executed trade, even though it does not explicitly state the absence of transaction execution.
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?
The description is tight and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by the precise input syntax and a compact cost/network note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly: it gives the input format, example values, behavior, and network/payment context. It does not describe the return payload or precise currency codes, but an agent can confidently call the tool with the provided template.
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?
The input schema already covers 100% of the parameter, but the description adds practical nuance: it shows the exact string format and clarifies that the destination is effectively USDC (via examples like COP->USDC). The spread mention also affects how the quote result should be interpreted.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Quote') and resource (currency conversion into USDC), with concrete examples (COP->USDC, USD->USDC) that make the operation unambiguous. It clearly says the tool returns exchange rates with a spread, which differentiates it from generic sibling tools like market-data or crypto-price.
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 a useful input template ('<amount> <from> <to>') and examples, implying when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state cases where a sibling such as crypto-price or wallet-balance would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains many trivially indistinct tools: ai-inference/inference, compress/comprimir, count-tokens/contar-tokens, detect-language/language-detect, and multiple overlapping OCR receipt variants. With 160 tools and pairs that differ only by language or suffix, an agent cannot reliably distinguish several capabilities.
Most names are readable lower-hyphen identifiers, but they mix action verbs, noun phrases, domain prefixes, pipeline suffixes, Spanish/English, and arbitrary demo/batch labels. There is a loose convention, but no consistent verb_noun pattern.
160 tools on one server is an extreme count and clearly unwieldy. Even as a marketplace, exposing every variant, demo, and composed bundle as a top-level MCP tool overwhelms agent selection and adds little distinct capability.
The set covers a huge range of text, image, audio, code, market, compliance, and content-workflow tasks, so many intents have some available tool. However, it is a grab-bag rather than a defined service surface, and the arbitrary demo/specialized variants make it unclear whether a needed operation truly exists or is just a duplicate.