Stablecoin market caps (DefiLlama). (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/stablecoin-mcap 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?
With no meaningful annotations (only a title), the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose payment requirements (x402 protocol, pricing) and authentication options, which is valuable. However, it does not mention that it is a read-only operation, what the response looks like, or any rate limits or potential side effects. The source (DefiLlama) adds some context but not enough for full transparency.
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 highly concise, with the main purpose stated in the first line and supplementary payment details in the second. Every sentence provides operational value, with no filler or redundant content. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 adequately covers the key operational aspects: data source, payment, HTTP endpoint, and authentication. However, it could be more complete by briefly indicating the expected response format or that market caps are likely returns in USD, but given the simplicity, it is mostly sufficient.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides 100% coverage trivially. The description adds no parameter-level details because none exist. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't miss anything in this regard.
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: stablecoin market caps from DefiLlama, which distinguishes it from stablecoin flow trackers or watches. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making the action slightly implicit. The source specification adds useful differentiation.
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 the many sibling tools, such as stablecoin_flow_tracker or stablecoin_watch. It includes payment details but no context on the intended use case, prerequisites, or alternatives. This is a clear gap.
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.