Crypto Fear & Greed index. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/fear-greed-index 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 include a title, so no read-only or destructive hints are present. The description adds useful behavioral context about the x402 payment requirement and header authentication options, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any limitations.
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, with the core statement in one line and payment/endpoint details in the second. It avoids verbosity, though the '(x402: 0.001 USDC per call)' parenthetical is slightly cryptic but acceptable.
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 simple no-argument tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains payment and HTTP equivalent, but fails to describe the response format or index scale (e.g., numeric range, categories). Since there is no output schema, a bit more explanation of what the agent can expect would improve completeness.
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 parameter documentation is not needed. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter details.
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's subject as 'Crypto Fear & Greed index', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a full action statement.
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 payment and endpoint details but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other crypto market tools like btc_price or crypto_global. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are 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.