Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal: Multi-asset composite stress index (0-100) from z-scores of 9 major global assets, indicating overall market heat/cold, with member details Price 0.10 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 behavioral traits. It reveals the live/computed nature, the scale, and the payment requirement. However, it fails to mention the optional wallet for free tier, creating a potentially misleading impression that payment is always required, and does not describe response format or member details.
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 sentence that packs substantial detail: what is returned, the scale, the assets, the cost, and the payment method. It is efficient, though the opening phrase 'Finance Signal Bundle' is somewhat redundant and there is a double space issue. Overall, well-structured for its length.
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?
With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the core output (stress index and member details) and the pricing. However, it omits details about how to use the free tier (the wallet parameter) and what exactly 'member details' includes, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.
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% for the single optional parameter (wallet), so the schema fully explains its purpose. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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: getting a live computed multi-asset composite stress index (0-100) from z-scores of 9 major global assets, indicating overall market heat/cold. This specific verb+resource+scope differentiates it from sibling signals like signal_gold or signal_econ_global.
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 provides clear context that this is a broad composite stress index, implying use for overall market conditions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or mention the free tier option described in the schema. The cost mention (0.10 via x402) adds usage context, but the omission of free credits limits guidance.
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.