Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal: BTC Hashrate Ribbon (difficulty ribbon equivalent) self-calculated from mempool.space daily hashrate with EMA bands [9/14/25/40/60/90/128/20 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (mempool.space), self-calculation, and mentions payment via x402 (USDC on Base), but the payment statement is ambiguous and the return format is not specified. This is partial transparency.
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 a single run-on sentence that mixes the signal purpose, EMA band list, and payment details without punctuation or clear structure. The tail 'EMA bands [9/14/25/40/60/90/128/20 Price 0.01 via x402' is confusing and poorly organized.
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?
While the core purpose is clear, the description omits the output structure (what the signal actually looks like) and leaves the payment/cost aspect ambiguous. With no output schema or annotations, the description should be more explicit about return value and usage conditions.
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% (the 'wallet' parameter is documented in the schema with its free-tier explanation). The description does not add parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the only parameter.
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 gets a live computed signal for BTC Hashrate Ribbon (difficulty ribbon equivalent), self-calculated from mempool.space daily hashrate. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling signal tools like processed_altseason or processed_bdi.
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 when a BTC hashrate/difficulty ribbon signal is needed, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It relies on the tool name and sibling names to convey distinction.
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.