Federal spending breakdown by agency. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/federal-spending-by-agency 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?
With only a title annotation, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the cost (0.001 USDC per call), the HTTP equivalent, and payment/authentication methods (X-PAYMENT header, API-key bypass). However, it does not describe the output format, scope of data, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, which would be valuable.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core function, followed by payment details. The sentence about HTTP equivalent and payment is useful but takes up half the description; still, it is not bloated and every sentence provides actionable information.
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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description conveys the basic purpose and payment requirement. However, it lacks information about the returned data structure, update frequency, or how it differs from other federal spending-related siblings, leaving some ambiguity about what an agent will receive and when it should be chosen.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Since no parameters exist, the description needs to add no parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 is appropriate and the description does not need to compensate.
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 states 'Federal spending breakdown by agency,' which clearly identifies the resource (federal spending) and the function (breakdown by agency). It distinguishes from siblings like federal_award_history and federal_contract_opportunities by focusing on spending rather than awards or contracts, though it lacks a verb and could be more specific about time periods or data source.
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. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools that might be more appropriate for specific queries, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 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.