FDA FAERS adverse events for a drug. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/fda-adverse-events-report 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 key behavioral traits not covered by annotations: the x402 payment requirement (0.001 USDC per call) and alternative authentication methods (X-PAYMENT header or API keys/tokens). This is valuable context beyond the sparse title-only annotation, though it doesn't mention rate limits or 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 appropriately short and front-loads the purpose, but it intermixes payment and HTTP endpoint details. These are useful but arguably belong in a separate metadata field, slightly reducing structural clarity.
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 description covers purpose and payment but omits critical invocation details: how the drug is specified, what the report contains, and any output format. For a data retrieval tool with no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
With zero parameters in the schema, the description adds some meaning by stating the tool is 'for a drug', but it fails to specify how to provide the drug (e.g., parameter name or format). The empty schema with additionalProperties leaves the agent guessing, and the description does not bridge that gap, making correct invocation ambiguous.
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 identifies the tool as returning FDA FAERS adverse events for a drug, which distinguishes it from siblings like fda_drug_recall_alert or openfda_drug_label. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'fetch', so it reads as a noun phrase rather than an action.
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 choose this tool over alternative FDA-related tools (e.g., fda_drug_recall_alert, openfda_drug_label). It focuses on payment details but does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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.