GET https://ticks.bnm.farm/mariners-d11 — $0.05 USDC on Base to 0xf59621FC406D266e18f314Ae18eF0a33b8401004. USCG D11 / Southwest 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the critical behaviors: exact USDC cost, recipient address, HTTP 402 for unpaid access, and JSON on success after a valid X-PAYMENT. It does not explain how to obtain the X-PAYMENT value, but it is still substantially 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 description is terse and front-loaded with the URL and payment details, with no redundant filler. The final 'Not a new SKU' note is cryptic and unexplained, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the operational essentials: URL, payment target and amount, failure status, and success result type. It still leaves the exact JSON content and the process for obtaining a valid X-PAYMENT unspecified, so it is not fully complete.
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 documents x_payment clearly as an optional x402 value forwarded as the X-PAYMENT header, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the value must be 'valid' for JSON to be returned, but it does not add format, provenance, or acquisition details beyond the schema.
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 identifies an exact HTTP GET endpoint and a concrete data scope (USCG D11 / Southwest LNM), and says a valid X-PAYMENT makes the URL return JSON. It does not explicitly say what the returned JSON contains or how this differs from mariners-d7/d8, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 payment/402 workflow implies when the tool can be used: an unpaid request returns 402 and a paid request returns JSON. The 'USCG D11 / Southwest LNM' label gives context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling 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.
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.