Compare & rank 2+ named players [PAID — signal credit or x402 USDC. Cost: 1 signal credit ($1.70-$2.49/credit by pack size). Uncredentialed calls return the 402 payment envelope; set X-API-KEY on the MCP connection or pay x402 out-of-band at GET /api/scan/compare.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the paid nature, cost structure, credential requirement, and the 402 payment-envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls—non-obvious operational details. It does not describe return format or pagination, but that is not heavily problematic given there is no output schema.
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 a single sentence but front-loads the core purpose before the paid/payment caveat. The pricing and auth details are useful and earn their place, though the nested bracket/parenthesis structure makes it slightly 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 paid tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important non-obvious conditions: cost, credit pricing, authentication setup, and failure mode. The schema's pointer to the instruments tool covers parameter discovery. It would be stronger if it described the result/ranking shape, but current coverage is adequate.
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?
There are 0 declared parameters, and the schema uses additionalProperties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the key semantic that the tool compares '2+ named players,' and the schema itself already directs users to the instruments tool for per-endpoint parameter documentation.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Compare & rank 2+ named players.' The '2+' scope and the explicit 'players' target clearly differentiate it from the many single-asset and signal-based sibling tools, even without naming an alternative.
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 case is clear: multi-player comparison/ranking. The description also covers key usage conditions such as payment cost, signal-credit pricing range, and that missing credentials trigger a 402 envelope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
There is significant overlap between scan_* and signal_* tools for the same underlying asset classes, e.g. scan_futures vs signal_futures, scan_racing vs signal_racing, and scan_predmarket vs signal_polymarket. Broader catch-alls like analysis, scan_ask, backtest, and signal_generate also blur the boundary, forcing an agent to parse long pricing details before knowing which tool actually applies.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a clear `scan_` or `signal_` snake_case prefix, which makes the product families easy to recognize. A small set of standalone unprefixed tools — analysis, backtest, instruments, leaderboard, quote, track_record — breaks the pattern, but the overall scheme is still consistent enough to infer.
47 tools is far beyond the practical range for an agent to reason about, even though the server's domain is broad and heavily segmented. Many specialist endpoints could be consolidated under fewer catch-all scanners and signals, but the exposed surface instead forces a large tool-selection decision on every request.
The tool surface covers discovery, cost preview, sample analysis, public track records, leaderboards, broad market scanning, asset-class-specific scanning, sports and event signals, and prediction-market verticals. There are minor gaps in explicit account/credit management and some redundant paths, but for a signal/research service the workflow is largely complete.