Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal: Real-time VIX level and volatility stress classification (calm <15, alert 15-25, panic 25-35, extreme >35). A thermometer for US stock marke 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 carries the full burden. It discloses a cost ('Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)') and the live computed nature of the signal. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention rate limits, or describe potential side effects. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 but poorly structured. The second sentence 'A thermometer for US stock marke Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' contains a typo ('marke' instead of 'market') and awkwardly combines a metaphor with pricing information. This reduces clarity and professionalism, making it less effective than a concisely written description.
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?
The description provides enough information about the output (VIX level and classification with thresholds) to be actionable. It lacks an explicit output format example, which could be useful, but given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of a well-documented parameter, the description is mostly complete. The typo and fragmented ending slightly undermine completeness.
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 fully describes the sole parameter 'wallet' with context about free credits, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 3 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 states the tool 'get live computed signal' and specifies 'Real-time VIX level and volatility stress classification' with thresholds. This clearly identifies the primary purpose and is distinct from sibling tools like processed_fear or signal_market_stress. However, the phrase 'Finance Signal Bundle' is slightly ambiguous, and the garbled ending 'US stock marke Price 0.01 via x402' introduces minor confusion.
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 VIX-related volatility stress assessment via classification thresholds, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools exist for similar market stress signals, yet no guidance is provided for selecting among them.
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.