Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal: Processed analytics layer over on-chain crypto: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict. Turns raw 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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is live/computed, that the layer is processed analytics, and mentions a USDC-on-Base x402 payment element, which is useful. But it does not describe return payload shape, required auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, and the payment sentence is too ambiguous to be fully actionable.
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 signal components, but the final sentence is malformed and not clearly informative. It is not rambling, yet it does not fully earn its place as written.
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 low complexity (zero required parameters, no nested schema), the description covers the signal's components and hints at a payment/access mechanism. It still leaves the exact return structure and the true meaning of the x402 sentence unspecified, which prevents a higher score.
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 single optional wallet parameter is already fully documented in the schema with the free-tier explanation. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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?
The description names a specific action ('get live computed signal') and resource ('Processed analytics layer over on-chain crypto'), and enumerates concrete outputs—30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and trend verdict—which helps separate it from the many processed_crypto_* siblings. However, the final phrase 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is unclear and slightly muddies the core purpose.
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 wording implies a use case: requesting a computed on-chain crypto trend signal. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusion conditions.
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.