Real-time regulator compliance dashboard query for a bank. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/compliance-regulator-query 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 cost (0.001 USDC per call) and authentication methods (X-PAYMENT header or API keys), which is useful behavioral context beyond the minimal annotation. However, it does not disclose how the response looks, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. With no readOnlyHint in annotations, the description leaves out some behavioral details.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by essential payment and HTTP details. There is no filler or redundancy, and every sentence provides actionable information for invoking the tool.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and minimal annotations, the description should provide more context about the return value. It only says 'dashboard query' without specifying what metrics or data are returned, making it difficult for an agent to know what to expect. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured output documentation.
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 tool has zero parameters defined in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add any parameter semantics, but since no parameters exist, this is acceptable. The schema's additionalProperties: true is not explained, which could be a minor gap, but the context indicates zero parameters.
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 states the tool's function as a real-time regulator compliance dashboard query for a bank, using the verb 'query' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compliance_anomaly_report or compliance_bank_audit by focusing on a dashboard query rather than a report or audit, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
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. It lacks any mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only context is the purpose itself, which implies usage but does not explicitly state it.
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.