Unified RWA agent entrypoint. action=list|valuation|risk|aggregates. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/rwa-intelligence 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 title annotation, the description discloses a per-call cost (0.001 USDC), the HTTP equivalent, and authentication methods including bypass options. This is helpful behavioral context, though it does not mention what happens on failed payment or whether the operation is read-only.
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, two lines of dense information: the action set, cost, HTTP mapping, and payment bypass methods. Every word earns its place with no 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?
For a tool with empty schema and no output schema, the description provides essential information but omits how the `action` is passed (e.g., query parameter vs body) and what the response looks like. The payment details are useful, but an agent would still need to infer calling conventions from the HTTP analog and sibling tools.
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 is empty, but the description defines the `action` parameter with an enum-like list of values (list, valuation, risk, aggregates). This fully compensates for the lack of schema properties and gives the agent actionable parameter knowledge.
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?
Description states it is a "Unified RWA agent entrypoint" and enumerates concrete actions (list, valuation, risk, aggregates), making the tool's scope specific and distinguishable from the sibling rwa_* tools. The verb "entrypoint" plus action list clearly conveys it routes to different RWA sub-capabilities.
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 action list implies usage contexts, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this unified entrypoint versus the dedicated siblings like rwa_valuation or rwa_risk. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the trade-off.
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.