robyn_yield_quoteRead-only JIT quote: how a spend would be fulfilled from an agent's Aave yield venue (draw <= your allowance -> Aave/Moonwell withdraw -> gasless deliver). Moves nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | USDC base units (6dp) | |
| toChain | No | ||
| srcChain | Yes | ||
| toAddress | No |
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?
With no annotations, description clearly states 'Read-only' and 'Moves nothing', confirming no side effects. It also outlines the fulfillment flow (draw, withdraw, deliver), providing useful behavioral context beyond just idempotency.
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, front-loading 'Read-only JIT quote' and avoiding redundancy. Every part adds value.
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?
Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return value structure, error conditions (e.g., insufficient allowance), or constraints on parameters like 'toChain' or 'toAddress'.
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 only 20% (amount only). The description does not clarify most parameters (agent, srcChain, toChain, toAddress) beyond what the schema provides. It hints at 'draw <= allowance' and 'Aave/Moonwell' but does not explicitly map to parameters.
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?
Description clearly states 'Quote a spend from yield' and explains it is a read-only JIT quote. The verb 'quote' and resource 'yield venue' are specific. While it distinguishes from sibling 'robyn_yield_spend' (actual spend), it does not explicitly differentiate from generic 'robyn_quote'.
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?
Description indicates usage for quoting without moving funds ('Read-only', 'Moves nothing'). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, such as comparing to 'robyn_yield_spend' for execution.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as robyn_quote, robyn_prepare, robyn_settle, robyn_cross_chain, robyn_plan, robyn_preflight, and robyn_preflight_full, all involving routing or quoting. Although descriptions are detailed, the high number of subtly different tools makes selection error-prone.
All tools follow a consistent <prefix>_<verb/noun> pattern, with robyn_ and null_ as clear category prefixes. Verbs like prepare, submit, verify and nouns like quote, plan, mesh are highly predictable throughout.
With 70 tools, the count far exceeds the 25+ heavy threshold. While the service scope is broad (payments, messaging, netting, Plus, yield, etc.), many tools could be merged or tiered, making the set feel overly large and burdensome for an agent.
The surface covers the full lifecycle from quoting, planning, submitting, verifying, auditing to messaging, custody, yield, and mandates, plus sandbox, lint, and recipes. A few advanced operations like cancellation or revocation are missing, but no critical gaps remain.