Valuation snapshot for one RWA id/symbol (e.g. buidl, ondo, paxg). (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/rwa-valuation 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 payment via x402, HTTP GET equivalent, and authentication bypass options. However, it does not describe response format, error behavior, or any rate limits. Since annotations contain only a title (no readOnly/destructive hints), the description carries the burden but only partially covers behavioral traits.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential HTTP and payment details. No wasted words or redundant information. It is well-structured for quick parsing.
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 has no output schema and no formal parameter definitions, yet the description does not explain how to specify the RWA id/symbol or what the valuation snapshot contains. Payment and auth are covered, but critical usage details about parameter passing and return value are missing, making it incomplete for a simple tool.
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 schema has no defined properties, so the description is the only source of parameter information. It implies a single RWA id/symbol parameter with examples, which adds semantic meaning. However, it does not specify how to pass the parameter (query, body, path), so not a perfect score. Given 0 params, baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 it provides a 'Valuation snapshot for one RWA id/symbol' with concrete examples (buidl, ondo, paxg), indicating a specific verb+resource action. This distinguishes it from sibling RWA tools like rwa_aggregates or rwa_risk, which likely cover broader or different scopes.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rwa_aggregates, rwa_assets, or rwa_risk. The description only states what it does and payment details, with no exclusions, preconditions, or alternative recommendations.
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.