Penny stock squeeze scanner — sub-$10 universe ranked by squeeze score. (x402: 0.01 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/penny-squeeze-scanner 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?
Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the burden. It discloses cost (0.01 USDC per call), payment methods (X-PAYMENT header or API keys), and the HTTP equivalent, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not describe the output format, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The return value is only vaguely implied ('ranked by squeeze score').
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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes payment and HTTP details in a structured, scannable format without fluff. Every sentence adds information, making it 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?
The tool is simple with no params, but the description lacks an explicit description of the return value (e.g., list of tickers, fields included). It does cover payment and endpoint mapping, which is helpful, but without an output schema, the agent must guess what data comes back. Usage guidance is also absent.
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 the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because there are none, but it does not need to. The payment context is relevant but not parameter-related.
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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Penny stock squeeze scanner — sub-$10 universe ranked by squeeze score.' It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying the 'sub-$10' universe (US penny stocks) and the ranking metric, which sets it apart from general squeeze_scanner or crypto_penny_squeeze_scanner.
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 usage for penny stock screening but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling scanners like crypto_squeeze_scanner or squeeze_scanner. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case. Payment instructions provide operational guidance but not selection 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.