FREE. List Agent Magnet Beacons for scriptmasterlabs, ranked by magnet_strength. Ranked by IMP imp_score (multi-rail). Use this to discover which paid tools to call next. No payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max beacons to return (default 25). | |
| min_strength | No | Minimum magnet_strength 0-1 filter. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no readOnlyHint or other annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses 'FREE' and 'No payment required' (cost transparency) and the ranking behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a list tool this is partly transparent but leaves gaps.
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?
Short and front-loaded with 'FREE'. However, 'FREE' and 'No payment required' are redundant, and the two ranking statements ('ranked by magnet_strength. Ranked by IMP imp_score') could be combined. Minor waste but overall efficient.
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 tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and ranking details. It does not describe the response shape or pagination, but the mention of 'Agent Magnet Beacons' and scores gives a reasonable picture. Sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with both params (limit, min_strength) described. The description mentions 'magnet_strength' ranking, which relates to min_strength, but adds no further semantic detail. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed that.
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?
Clearly states it lists Agent Magnet Beacons for scriptmasterlabs, with specific ranking criteria (magnet_strength and IMP imp_score). Provides a distinct use case: discover which paid tools to call next. This is a specific verb+resource+context, distinguishing it as a recommendation tool.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to discover which paid tools to call next', giving a clear use case. It also notes 'No payment required', implying it's a free way to prioritize paid calls. However, it does not mention exclusions or explicitly contrast with sibling get_agent_magnet_beacons, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
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.