Aggregate RWA TVL/value by class + top assets. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/rwa-aggregates 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?
Beyond the minimal annotation (only a title), the description discloses critical behavioral information: the cost ('0.001 USDC per call'), the payment protocol (x402) with header requirements, and alternative authentication methods (X-API-Key, Bearer token). It also specifies the HTTP method (GET). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it stops short of describing response format or potential side effects (though the operation is clearly a read/aggregate).
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 core purpose. The subsequent lines about HTTP equivalent and payment are directly relevant and concise. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it aggregates and how to pay for it. It lacks an explicit statement about return values or what 'class' means, but the purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke it. The additionalProperties schema hint suggests flexibility, which is acceptable.
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 defined parameters and allows additional properties. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; it does not conflict with the schema's openness.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Aggregate RWA TVL/value by class + top assets.' The verb 'aggregate' and the resource 'RWA TVL/value' are specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rwa_assets or rwa_valuation, but the scoping 'by class + top assets' implies a distinct aggregation function.
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 suitable use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only includes payment/HTTP details, which are implementation-specific rather than 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.