Stablecoin market caps + dominance (DefiLlama). (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/stablecoin-watch 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?
The description discloses the x402 payment cost (0.001 USDC per call), the HTTP endpoint, and authentication header options (X-PAYMENT, X-API-Key, X-Owner-Key, Bearer token), which are valuable behavioral details not present in the annotations. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or side effects, but the nature of the data strongly implies a safe read operation.
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 two concise sentences plus an HTTP equivalent and payment line, front-loading the core purpose ('Stablecoin market caps + dominance'). Every piece of information—purpose, cost, endpoint, and authentication—earns its place without redundant filler.
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 simple parameterless data-retrieval tool, the description covers all essential invocation details: data provided, source, cost, HTTP endpoint, and authentication method. It does not describe the output format, but no output schema exists and the low complexity makes this an acceptable omission.
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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe; the HTTP equivalent is the only additional invocation detail. The additionalProperties true in the schema is not addressed but is likely irrelevant for this parameterless tool.
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 the tool provides stablecoin market caps and dominance from DefiLlama, identifying the specific resource and scope. The verb 'watch' in the name implies monitoring, and the description adds the data type plus source, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the data scope is specific.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stablecoin_mcap or stablecoin_flow_tracker. The description focuses on payment and HTTP details rather than use-case context or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.
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.