SEC company tickers map (CIK lookup). Req: { q?: string } filters locally (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/sec-company-tickers 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 provide only a title, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses payment requirements (x402 cost, headers, and bypass options), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe the response format, leaving some significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 brief and gets to the point, including payment and HTTP equivalent details in a compact form. The structure is a bit fragmented (using 'Req:' and abbreviations), but every sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundant text.
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?
With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description fails to clarify what the tool returns (e.g., the shape of the ticker map, whether it includes company names, CIK numbers, etc.). While payment information is helpful, the lack of return value details makes the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 with additionalProperties true, providing zero parameter information. The description compensates by specifying an optional 'q' parameter that filters locally, which is valuable. However, it does not elaborate on what 'q' should contain (e.g., ticker or CIK), leaving some ambiguity.
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 tool as providing SEC company tickers with CIK lookup, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle filings or other SEC data. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on the noun 'map' and the action 'lookup' to convey purpose.
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 intended use is implied by 'SEC company tickers map (CIK lookup)' – agents would infer to use it for looking up CIK numbers or tickers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternative SEC tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative 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.