Heuristic RWA risk score (not a credit rating). (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/rwa-risk 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 heuristic nature, the cost (0.001 USDC per call), the payment protocol (x402), and the HTTP equivalent endpoint. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations (which only provide a title). However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or what happens on payment failure.
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 sentences covering purpose and access/cost. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the payment/endpoint details are presented clearly. No wasted words.
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 description lacks essential information about what input the tool expects (e.g., an asset identifier) and what the response format is. Given the empty schema and no output schema, the agent is left without enough context to correctly invoke the tool. The payment and endpoint details are useful but do not compensate for the missing input specification.
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?
With zero defined parameters in the schema, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter details, but it also does not need to since there are none formally defined. The presence of additionalProperties: true is not addressed, but this is a minor gap.
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 provides a 'Heuristic RWA risk score' and explicitly clarifies it is 'not a credit rating'. This is a specific, unique deliverable that distinguishes it from sibling tools like rwa_valuation or rwa_intelligence.
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 appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The payment and HTTP info are not usage guidelines.
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.