Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal: Brazil macro snapshot (Brazil Central Bank BCB, no key): benchmark rate Selic, inflation IPCA, exchange rate USDBRL. A sample of emerging ma Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | No | optional 0x wallet for X-Wallet free tier (free credits every month: 100 anonymous or 5000 with a bound wallet) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'no key' (no API key needed), pricing via x402 (payment required), and wallet-based free tier. This goes beyond a simple data-fetch description, though it does not describe output format or side effects. The garbled 'A sample of emerging ma' slightly reduces clarity.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains a truncated, confusing phrase ('A sample of emerging ma Price 0.01') that undermines clarity. It could be more concise and well-structured if completed and cleaned up, but as written it is somewhat awkward.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description lists the specific data returned (Selic, IPCA, USDBRL), which helps. It also includes pricing and access details. However, it does not describe the format of the result, error handling, or how the payment integration works beyond a vague x402 reference, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
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 has one optional parameter 'wallet' with a description covering its free-tier purpose. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the wallet parameter beyond what the schema states, so no bonus is warranted.
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 the tool's purpose: 'get live computed signal: Brazil macro snapshot' with specific data points (Selic, IPCA, USDBRL). This differentiates it from sibling tools by focusing on Brazil-specific macro data, meeting the bar for a specific verb+resource+scope.
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 implies usage for Brazil macro signals by naming the specific indicators, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, so it relies on the reader to infer context from the name and content.
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.
Nearly all 80+ processed_/signal_ tools share the same boilerplate description and overlapping coverage areas (e.g., processed_global_markets vs. processed_global_indices vs. signal_global_indices; processed_crypto_funding_rate vs. processed_crypto_funding_rates), so an agent cannot reliably distinguish them. The generic ai_gateway, fetch_data, and list_products also have somewhat fuzzy boundaries around data access. Only broad asset categories in the names provide any separation.
Core tools use verb-first imperative names (fetch_data, get_product_info, list_products), while the vast majority use adjective/noun prefixes (processed_*, signal_*), so the set mixes conventions. Within each cluster naming is consistent and all names are readable snake_case, but the 87-tool surface has no single predictable verb_noun pattern. Minor singular/plural inconsistencies like processed_crypto_funding_rate vs. processed_crypto_funding_rates add friction.
87 tools is an extremely large surface for an MCP server, and most are variant data products that could be one fetch_data call with a product identifier. This falls into the >50 extreme range. The generic list/get/fetch primitives make the 80+ product-specific endpoints especially redundant.
The core consumer flow is covered: list products, inspect product info, and fetch a product (with payment challenge handling). Missing wallet/credit/balance tools and search/filtering are notable but work-aroundable. For a read-only data marketplace the lifecycle is largely complete.