Binance 24h ticker. Req: { symbol?: string } default BTCUSDT (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/binance-ticker 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?
With no safety annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the optional symbol parameter with default BTCUSDT, the x402 payment requirement, and the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, rate limits, or whether results are cached. This is partial but non-trivial transparency.
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 short lines. The main purpose is front-loaded ('Binance 24h ticker'), while operational details (HTTP equivalent, payment) follow. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
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 is simple, but no output schema is provided, so the description should at least hint at the response shape. It does not mention what fields the ticker returns (e.g., last price, volume). The payment and default symbol are covered, but the lack of return-format information leaves a moderate gap for a tool with no schema.
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 the baseline is 4 due to zero parameters. The description compensates by explicitly stating the optional symbol parameter and its default BTCUSDT, providing meaning beyond the schema. It does not detail accepted symbol formats, but the default example is sufficient for basic use.
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 identifies the tool as a Binance 24-hour ticker, which is a specific resource. It lacks an action verb like 'fetch' or 'get,' but the noun phrase 'Binance 24h ticker' unambiguously conveys the purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling price tools like btc_price or crypto_price, though the focus on Binance provides some implicit distinction.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative price/ticker tools. It specifies the request format and payment mechanism but does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or appropriate contexts. Sibling tools such as btc_price and crypto_price exist, but no comparison is given.
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.