Live cross-venue spot price with venue agreement and spread. A wide spread means venues disagree and any settlement in that range is contestable. Paid: $0.01 in USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Asset symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL | |
| payment_header | No | X-PAYMENT header from a settled x402 payment. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains that a wide spread means venues disagree and settlements in that range are contestable, and it discloses the cost of $0.01 in USDC via x402. This goes beyond the structured annotations.
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 two sentences: one states the core output, the second interprets spread and mentions payment. Every sentence carries meaning, is front-loaded, and there is no fluff.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately hints at the output (price, agreement, spread) and the payment requirement. It could be slightly more explicit about how the payment_header connects to the paid model, but overall it's complete for a simple spot-price tool.
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 parameters (asset and payment_header) are well-documented. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning the payment via x402, which is already captured in the payment_header description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it returns a live cross-venue spot price, including venue agreement and spread. This is a specific verb (get) plus resource (crypto spot), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like permit tools and settlement asset lists by focusing on current price data.
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 provides clear context: the tool gives a live, cross-venue spot price, and it explains the meaning of a wide spread for settlement purposes. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is sufficient to understand when this tool is appropriate, and the payment note indicates a prerequisite.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: permit tools (check, get verdict, find projects, list jurisdictions) are separated from crypto settlement tools (resolve, attest, verify, decode, spot, list assets). Even the closely related resolve/attest/verify trio is well-differentiated via descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (e.g., check_permit_activity, resolve_price_event, list_settlement_assets). No mixed conventions or vague verbs, making the API predictable.
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a dual-domain server. Each tool earns its place, providing comprehensive coverage without redundancy or bloat.
The permit side covers discovery, quick checks, full verdicts, and project searches. The crypto side covers resolution, attestation, verification, decoding, spot prices, and asset discovery. Minor gap: no way to list historical decisions or events, but that's not essential for the primary workflows.