Binance USDT-m premium/funding snapshot. Req: { symbol?: string } default BTCUSDT (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/binance-funding 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?
There are no annotations beyond a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the x402 cost (0.001 USDC), the HTTP equivalent endpoint, and payment/auth header requirements, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention rate limits or error responses, but the provided details are significant and beyond what annotations would show.
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 two short lines: the first states purpose and cost, the second gives HTTP and payment details. It is front-loaded with the most critical info and contains zero filler. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics (param, default, cost, auth). It doesn't describe the response structure or data fields, but the tool's low complexity and the given context make it mostly complete. A small gap is the absence of what 'premium/funding snapshot' actually contains.
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 with additionalProperties true, so it provides no parameter documentation. The description adds the optional 'symbol' parameter, its type (string), and its default (BTCUSDT), which is essential information the agent would otherwise lack. This fully compensates for the empty schema.
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 'Binance USDT-m premium/funding snapshot,' which clearly identifies the resource (Binance USDT-m funding data) and the action (snapshot/retrieval). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like binance_ticker (ticker price) and funding_rates (general funding), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 a default symbol and notes the optional 'symbol' parameter, which implies use cases (BTCUSDT by default, other symbols possible). However, it provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or exclusions vs. alternatives like perp_funding_aggregator or funding_rates. This is implied context, not clear direction.
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.