Crypto penny squeeze scanner — sub-$1 tokens ranked by squeeze score. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/crypto-penny-squeeze-scanner 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 only provide a title, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses payment requirements (x402 protocol, cost per call, header options) and the HTTP equivalent, which are useful operational details. However, it does not describe the return format, sort order, or any side effects.
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 well-structured: a single-sentence purpose line followed by a payment/invocation block. It avoids tautology and every sentence provides distinct value, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 zero-parameter scanner with no output schema, the description covers the core function and the crucial payment/authentication details. It does not explain what a 'squeeze score' is or what the response contains, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of payment details, it is reasonably complete.
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 and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the scanner evaluates (sub-$1 tokens, squeeze score) but no parameter semantics are needed. The baseline is appropriate.
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 clear and specific purpose: a scanner that ranks sub-$1 crypto tokens by squeeze score. The 'sub-$1' qualifier differentiates it from sibling tools like crypto_squeeze_scanner or squeeze_scanner, making the tool's scope immediately evident.
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 implies usage for sub-$1 tokens but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternative squeeze scanners. It provides no exclusions or comparison with similar sibling tools, though the 'sub-$1' scope offers some implicit guidance.
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.