Public web social/news search (not official X API). Params: { q, limit? } (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/social-search 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 carries the burden. It discloses the per-call cost (0.001 USDC), the HTTP endpoint, and payment authentication options, which are valuable behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits or return format, but the provided details exceed annotation coverage.
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, with the purpose front-loaded and technical details (endpoint, payment) in a second sentence. No redundant or irrelevant content, though the payment explanation is dense.
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 x402 payment and no output schema, the description covers call mechanics (endpoint, payment) and parameter names, but does not describe the response format or error behavior. This is a moderate gap for an API call 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 input schema is empty with additionalProperties true, so the description's mention of 'Params: { q, limit? }' adds essential meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the types, format, or defaults of these parameters, 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 states it performs 'Public web social/news search' and explicitly notes it is not the official X API, which helps differentiate it from sibling search tools like web_search and news_headlines. The verb+resource is specific and the scope is defined.
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 implies usage through the phrase 'social/news search' and the exclusion 'not official X API', but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over siblings. Some guidance is present, but not comprehensive.
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.