Bitcoin mempool recommended fees (mempool.space). (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/btc-mempool-fees 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 readOnly/destructive hints in annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the payment requirement and HTTP equivalent, but does not describe return format, rate limits, or potential side effects. The read-only nature is only implied, not explicit.
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 brief, using three sentences to cover purpose and payment details. It is front-loaded with the main function, though the payment details could be considered extra. Overall, it is concise and earns its place.
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 parameterless tool, the description covers the source and necessary payment context, but omits descriptive details of the output (e.g., fee categories, units). Since there is no output schema, this gap prevents full self-sufficiency for an agent.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds little about parameters because none exist; it does not clarify whether optional query parameters are accepted, but the empty schema already indicates no required inputs.
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 'Bitcoin mempool recommended fees (mempool.space)' clearly declares the tool's function with a specific resource (Bitcoin mempool fees) and source. It distinguishes itself from siblings like btc_price (price) and gas_tracker (likely Ethereum gas) without ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the data source and payment mechanism, but does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as btc_price or gas_tracker.
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.