Crypto Fear & Greed + global market cap + BTC dominance. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/market-regime-indicator 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 adds useful behavioral context not present in annotations: call cost (0.001 USDC), HTTP endpoint, and payment/auth delivery methods. However, annotations provide no safety info, so the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose whether the tool returns raw values or a computed regime score, or what the response structure looks like.
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 line names the data components, and the second supplies payment/auth details. No fluff, though the payment section is slightly technical. It earns its place by conveying essential cost and access info.
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 zero-parameter tool, the name and components give a basic understanding, but the description lacks a clear statement of output (e.g., JSON fields, composite index vs. raw values). With overlapping sibling tools, more differentiation would make it complete.
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 with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter instructions, as there are none to document.
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 lists three crypto market components (Fear & Greed, global market cap, BTC dominance) but lacks an explicit verb, so it doesn't clearly state what the tool does with these metrics. The name 'market_regime_indicator' implies a composite or derived indicator, but the description never confirms this, making the purpose somewhat vague.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fear_greed_index, crypto_global, or btc_price. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess the tool's niche.
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.