GET https://ticks.bnm.farm/mariners — $0.05 USDC on Base to 0xf59621FC406D266e18f314Ae18eF0a33b8401004. USCG D13 / Northwest LNM Unpaid returns HTTP 402. After a valid X-PAYMENT, the same URL returns JSON. Not a new SKU.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x_payment | No | Optional x402 X-PAYMENT value forwarded to the paid GET as the X-PAYMENT header. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it discloses the exact price, the payment recipient, the HTTP 402 behavior when unpaid, and the fact that the same URL returns JSON after a valid X-PAYMENT. This is unusually explicit for a paid endpoint.
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 compact and front-loaded with the URL, price, and payment behavior. The final sentence 'Not a new SKU.' is cryptic and adds limited actionable guidance, but the overall description remains tight and readable.
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 gives essential endpoint and payment mechanics, which is good for a simple one-parameter tool. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the returned JSON represents, and the sibling tools suggest regional/variant options that are not differentiated here, leaving a meaningful completeness gap.
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 already fully documents x_payment as an optional x402 X-PAYMENT value forwarded as a header, giving the parameter complete schema coverage. The tool description adds little beyond implying that a valid X-PAYMENT unlocks the JSON response, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 operation as a GET to a specific URL and explains the payment-gated behavior: unpaid requests yield HTTP 402 and paid requests return JSON. However, it never states what content the JSON contains or how this endpoint differs from siblings like mariners-d11/d7/d8, so it falls short of full clarity.
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 practical usage context: a valid X-PAYMENT is required to get JSON and unpaid calls return 402. It does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over the similar mariners-d11/d7/d8 variants or when not to use it, leaving the selection logic mostly implicit.
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.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct regulatory document collections (FDA, EPA, FDIC, etc.), so the majority are unambiguous. However, 'search' and 'firm-check' both offer free search with overlapping scope, and 'get-one' vs 'get-page' are easily confused payment operations. Similar prefixed names like mariners, mariners-d7/d8/d11 and gmp/gmp-md add further boundary fuzziness.
The bulk of tools follow a consistent lowercase-hyphenated source-slug convention (aaib-reports, cder-reviews, cfpb-orders), which is predictable. But utility tools break the pattern with imperative/descriptive names (search, firm-check, get-one, get-page), and 'ticks' is a bare noun that doesn't fit either style. The mixed conventions are readable but not uniform.
At 46 tools, this is a heavy surface that will be unwieldy for an agent to navigate and select from. Each tool does represent a distinct data product, but the sheer volume exceeds what earns its place in a coherent MCP tool set. A door-based catalog design might work better with a smaller number of parameterized tools.
The core workflow is well covered: per-door search, cross-door search, single-document retrieval via ?id=, paginated page retrieval, and payment handling are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to enumerate all available doors/catalogs or inspect schemas, and firm-check returns only citations rather than bodies. Overall it's a complete access lifecycle for the data-shop domain.