get_band_dots[Market data: crypto] Current WaveTrend band dots across 66 Kraken 4h USD pairs. Paid: $0.01 USDC on Base, paid in-band via x402 MCP (@x402/mcp; _meta "x402/payment"). Also at GET https://micro-saas-agent.onrender.com/api/dots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pass | No | Optional GW8 day pass token (from buy_day_pass / POST /api/pass/day); skips per-call payment |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / passAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional GW8 day pass token (from buy_day_pass / POST /api/pass/day); skips per-call payment",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the burden well by disclosing the $0.01 USDC on Base cost, in-band x402 MCP payment mechanism, the _meta "x402/payment" convention, and an alternate GET endpoint. It does not state rate limits or explicitly describe the response shape, but the critical paid-operation behavior is transparent.
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 definition is compact and front-loads the data scope before payment details. The alternate URL and payment metadata are dense but relevant; no sentence is clearly wasted.
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?
The description covers what the data is and how payment works, which is the main complexity for this tool. Because there is no output schema, it would benefit from more detail on return shape or what a "band dot" includes, and it lacks sibling-selection context.
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 single optional `pass` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it skips per-call payment. The description does not mention the parameter, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 resource and scope: current WaveTrend band dots across 66 Kraken 4h USD pairs. That is clear enough for an agent to know what data it retrieves, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_full_signal or get_regime.
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 as a paid current-market-data endpoint and explains payment mechanics, including cost and an alternative HTTP URL. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool instead of the many sibling market/signal tools.
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.