FEC campaign finance — candidates, committees, and contribution totals. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/fec-campaign-finance 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 the access method (HTTP GET via x402 protocol, with payment/authentication options) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, rate limits, or response characteristics. Since annotations do not include readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries the burden and partially fulfills it by indicating a data retrieval operation.
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 two sentences: the first provides the core purpose, the second covers payment and HTTP details. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every sentence adds value.
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, parameterless data retrieval tool, the description adequately covers the main resource categories and access requirements. It doesn't detail response format, but that's uncovered because no output schema exists. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to understand what it returns and how to invoke it.
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 description need not explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters.
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 names the resource (FEC campaign finance) and specifies the data types provided (candidates, committees, contribution totals). It distinguishes itself from related tools like lobbying_disclosures or congressional_bills_search by focusing on campaign finance. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less action-oriented.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions payment details and the HTTP equivalent, not selection criteria, exclusions, or typical use cases. Users must infer applicability from the domain name alone.
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.