Check if an entity appears in federal award records with exclusion indicators. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/excluded-parties-check 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 adds behavioral context by disclosing the cost per call (0.001 USDC) and the HTTP endpoint, which goes beyond the sparse annotations. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe the response format, leaving some ambiguity about what the tool returns and whether it mutates anything.
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 very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional HTTP and payment details are useful and contained in a compact format. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 cannot be used correctly because the input mechanism is undefined. There is no description of return values or output schema, and no clarification of what 'exclusion indicators' actually means. The payment information is present but does not make up for the missing operational details.
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 schema defines zero parameters, but the tool's purpose implies an entity must be provided. The description fails to explain how to specify this entity (e.g., via query parameter or request body). With additionalProperties: true, the schema is unhelpful, and the description does not compensate for this critical omission.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies a clear resource: 'federal award records with exclusion indicators.' This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from generic lookups. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with similar sibling tools like entity_compliance_check or sam_entity_verification.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions pricing/HTTP equivalents but lacks context about which scenarios warrant this check versus other compliance tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
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.