Full compliance audit cycle for a bank. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/compliance-bank-audit 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 the payment requirement (0.001 USDC) and demonstrates how to authorize requests, which adds context beyond the minimal annotations. However, it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what external calls it makes, or what data it accesses, and there are no annotations to cover these aspects. The burden falls on the description, and it only partially fulfills 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 one main sentence stating the tool's purpose and a second sentence covering HTTP equivalent and payment mechanism. Every piece of information is relevant and no space is wasted. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action.
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?
With no output schema and no explanation of what the audit cycle returns, the description is incomplete for practical usage. It lacks details on expected results, whether any inputs are needed (despite additionalProperties true), and any limitations or assumptions. Given the potential complexity of a 'full compliance audit,' the absence of this context leaves a significant gap.
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 and no defined parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4; the description doesn't attempt to explain inputs, which is acceptable in this case.
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 the tool performs a 'Full compliance audit cycle for a bank,' clearly identifying the action (audit) and the resource (bank). However, it does not specify what the audit entails or differentiate it from sibling compliance tools like compliance_anomaly_report or compliance_regulator_query, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only includes payment details and an HTTP equivalent, which are not usage guidelines for choosing between tools. The user is left to infer that it is for bank compliance audits based on the name.
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.