Submit a bank compliance anomaly for scoring. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/compliance-anomaly-report 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?
Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait: the tool requires a fee of 0.001 USDC per call via x402 and explains how to pay or bypass using API keys. However, it does not disclose what 'scoring' means, return behavior, or side effects, leaving some opacity.
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 highly concise: three sentences covering purpose, HTTP equivalent, and payment. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
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 a submission endpoint with no defined parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain what 'anomaly' data to send and what response to expect. It omits both, leaving the agent with no way to construct a valid request or interpret the result.
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 defines zero parameters and allows additional properties. With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed because the schema imposes no structure.
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 ('Submit'), a resource ('bank compliance anomaly'), and the purpose ('for scoring'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools like compliance_bank_audit and compliance_regulator_query, which focus on auditing or querying rather than submitting anomaly reports.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as compliance_bank_audit or compliance_regulator_query. It only mentions the HTTP equivalent and payment method, but does not clarify the selection criteria or alternatives.
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.