SDVOSB/VOSB set-aside contract awards — veteran-owned business opportunities. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/sdvosb-setaside-feed 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?
Annotations are minimal (title only), so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the x402 cost (0.001 USDC per call) and authentication bypass options (X-API-Key / Bearer token), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not describe the response format, pagination, rate limits, or data freshness, which leaves some transparency gaps.
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. The first line states the tool's purpose, and the second line adds essential payment and endpoint details. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundant information.
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 covers the core purpose, cost, HTTP endpoint, and authentication methods, which is adequate for a zero-parameter feed. However, there is no output schema, so the description could have briefly explained the returned data fields or example response structure. This missing context leaves a notable gap for agents that need to parse results.
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 properties and the description contains no parameter details. Since schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameters to elaborate on, the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids adding semantic overload beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 identifies the resource as 'SDVOSB/VOSB set-aside contract awards — veteran-owned business opportunities.' It names a specific data feed and uses a specific noun phrase, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as federal_contract_opportunities or sam_opportunities.
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. It only explains the x402 payment requirement and HTTP equivalent, but does not mention use cases, exclusions, or performant alternatives that might be more appropriate.
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.