Full equity squeeze scanner — $1–$200 universe ranked by squeeze score. (x402: 0.01 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/squeeze-scanner 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 only provide a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the x402 payment cost (0.01 USDC per call), the HTTP equivalent endpoint, and authentication bypass methods via X-API-Key or bearer tokens. This adds significant operational context, though it omits output format details.
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 tool's core purpose, followed by essential payment and endpoint details. There is slight redundancy in repeating the x402 protocol, but overall the structure is efficient and easy to parse.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, universe, ranking, cost, endpoint, and authentication. It does not explicitly describe the response format, but 'ranked by squeeze score' implies the expected output structure. The description is sufficiently complete for invocation.
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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds context about payment and endpoint, but no parameter-related information is needed. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
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 this is a 'Full equity squeeze scanner' for a $1–$200 universe ranked by squeeze score. It specifies the exact asset class (equity) and scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_squeeze_scanner and penny_squeeze_scanner.
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 clear context by stating 'equity' and the $1–$200 price range, which implies usage for equity squeeze scanning and implicitly excludes crypto and penny stocks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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.