Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal: MOVE volatility proxy (bond market VIX) based on 30-day rolling annualized volatility of 10Y Treasury yield (DGS10) from FRED. Measures bond 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 disclose behaviors. It mentions 'via x402 (USDC on Base)' but does not explicitly state that this is a paid transaction, whether wallet authorization is required, what the response contains, or any rate limits. The phrase 'Measures bond Price 0.01' is cryptic and fails to clarify the pricing/metering mechanism.
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 (two sentences), but the second sentence ('Measures bond Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)') is ambiguous and confusing, potentially wasting valuable context. It does not clearly earn its place and may mislead an agent about pricing or output.
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?
This is a paid financial signal tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the signal calculation but omits essential context: what the response looks like, how payment works, whether a wallet must be provided for paid access, and any prerequisites. The cryptic pricing reference is insufficient.
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 only parameter (wallet) is fully described in the input schema (coverage 100%), including free-tier options. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the wallet parameter; the mention of x402/USDC is tangential and not clearly linked to the 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 a specific action ('get live computed signal') and a precise resource ('MOVE volatility proxy (bond market VIX)') with a detailed formula ('30-day rolling annualized volatility of 10Y Treasury yield (DGS10) from FRED'). This distinguishes it from sibling processed_* tools that focus on other signals.
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 the tool should be used when bond-market volatility (MOVE proxy) is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling tools are named as comparisons.
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.