List/filter tokenized RWA assets with valuation + risk. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/rwa-assets 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 discloses the x402 payment requirement and authentication bypass methods (X-API-Key, etc.), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the return format or any limitations. Since annotations provide no safety hints, the description carries the full transparency burden, and while it adds some value, it leaves key behaviors unexplained.
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 extremely concise and well-structured. The main action is stated in the first sentence, followed by clearly labeled payment and HTTP equivalent information. Every sentence provides distinct value, with no redundancy or filler. This is a model of efficient communication.
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 absence of an output schema and any behavioral annotations, the description should explain what the response looks like and any limitations. It only mentions 'valuation + risk' but does not describe the output format, pagination, or filtering options. The payment/auth details are covered, but for a list/filter tool, the incomplete parameter info and lack of return value description make it insufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively without additional clarifications.
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 defined parameters in the schema, but the description mentions 'filter' capabilities without specifying how filtering works. The schema has additionalProperties: true, implying arbitrary parameters may be passed, but neither the schema nor the description documents them. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of filter syntax or options, so a lower score is warranted.
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 function: 'List/filter tokenized RWA assets with valuation + risk.' It uses a specific verb and resource, which makes the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like rwa_valuation or rwa_risk, which could cause confusion about whether to use this tool or those for valuation/risk details.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to the many sibling RWA tools (e.g., rwa_aggregates, rwa_intelligence). The only context is the payment mechanism, which is not usage guidance. An agent would not know when to choose this over similar tools.
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.