L2Beat-like summary via DefiLlama chains filtered to L2 names heuristic. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/l2-activity 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 no safety annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that each call costs 0.001 USDC, requires an X-PAYMENT header or alternative authentication (X-API-Key, X-Owner-Key, Bearer token), and maps to a GET HTTP endpoint. However, it does not describe the response format, error behavior, or side effects, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.
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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph covers the HTTP mapping and payment/auth details without filler. The 'L2Beat-like' metaphor adds color but may be obscure to some agents, slightly hurting clarity. Overall, it earns its place.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and only a title annotation, the description must fully explain what the agent will get when invoking the tool. It covers purpose and payment/auth well, but does not describe the shape of the returned summary (e.g., fields, metrics, examples). This leaves a significant gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The mention of an 'L2 names heuristic' implies that filtering is automatic and requires no user input, which is consistent with the empty schema.
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 identifies the tool as producing an L2Beat-like summary of L2 activity using DefiLlama chains filtered by an L2 name heuristic. It distinguishes itself from siblings like defi_chains_tvl by explicitly focusing on L2 layers. However, the exact nature of the 'summary' (metrics, scope, output format) remains vague, preventing a perfect score.
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 implies this tool should be used for L2 activity data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over other DefiLlama-based or defi analytics siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are provided. The payment instructions are operational details, not usage guidance.
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.