Spot price + mcap/vol. Req: { ids?: string csv, vs?: string, symbol?: BTC|ETH|SOL } (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/crypto-price 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?
Beyond the minimal annotations (only title), the description discloses key behavioral traits: payment via x402 protocol (0.001 USDC per call), authentication methods (X-API-Key, X-Owner-Key, Bearer token), and an HTTP GET equivalent. These add context about cost and access requirements. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but the GET method implies it. No contradictions with annotations.
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 core function ('Spot price + mcap/vol'). It then provides parameters, HTTP equivalent, and payment info in a structured, line-separated format. Each sentence adds value, though the payment details are somewhat verbose and could be streamlined.
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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the core output (spot price, market cap, volume) but lacks details on default behavior when no params are provided, exact response structure, or how it relates to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, the description should more fully explain return values and parameter defaults, leaving a noticeable 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, so the description is the only source of parameter information. It provides a request example with ids (string csv), vs (string), and symbol (BTC|ETH|SOL), adding meaningful semantics. While it doesn't explain each parameter in detail, it offers enough for an agent to construct a basic request.
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 'Spot price + mcap/vol' clearly indicates the tool provides spot price, market cap, and volume. The name 'crypto_price' aligns with this. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like btc_price, eth_price, or sol_price, though the 'ids' parameter implies multi-coin support. It is specific but lacks strong sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as btc_price, eth_price, or sol_price. The description only provides payment details and an HTTP equivalent, not usage context or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making information for tool selection.
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.