Grounding oracle — fact-checks a claim against live government data. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/ai-fact-check Payment: x402 protocol — send X-PAYMENT header with base64 payment payload, or X-API-Key / X-Owner-Key / Bearer token to bypass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it mentions a per-call cost (0.001 USDC) and payment/authentication requirements. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or any limitations. Since annotations only provide a title and no safety hints, the description carries the burden but only partially meets it.
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 extremely concise, with two sentences covering the core function and essential payment/auth details. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.
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 tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, evidence, a score). It also lacks clarity on how the claim is provided, given there are no defined parameters. For a tool that requires an implicit claim input and has a payment mechanism, the description is incomplete.
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 is empty (0 parameters, additionalProperties true), so there are no parameter details to describe. The description mentions 'a claim' as the implicit input but does not explain how to pass it (e.g., as a query parameter, in the prompt, etc.). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but leaves the invocation format ambiguous.
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 a specific action: 'fact-checks a claim against live government data.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools, as no other tool in the list is described as a government data fact-checker.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to fact-check a claim against live government data. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous, so it earns a 4.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are exact duplicates (e.g., wallet_analysis/wallet_analyzer, honeypot_check/rugpull_detector, defi_yield/defi_yield_rates) with identical descriptions, and many overlapping scanners (squeeze_scanner variants). An agent cannot reliably distinguish these tools.
Names are all snake_case, but conventions vary wildly: some are resource names (btc_price), some are actions (list_magnets), some are generic utilities (calculator), and duplicates use different naming patterns for the same function (wallet_analysis vs wallet_analyzer). No consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern.
139 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold. The scope is a grab-bag of unrelated domains (crypto, FDA, SEC, utilities, web scraping), suggesting no curation.
The set is a shallow pile of read-only queries and utilities with no lifecycle management for any one domain. Many sub-areas have only one or two tools, and duplicates occupy slots where distinct operations should be. The lack of a clear domain makes completeness impossible to assess, but the surface is redundant rather than comprehensive.