GET https://ticks.bnm.farm/mariners-d7 — $0.05 USDC on Base to 0xf59621FC406D266e18f314Ae18eF0a33b8401004. USCG D7 / Southeast 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, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses the paywall behavior (HTTP 402 when unpaid), the payment requirement ($0.05 USDC on Base), and that the same URL returns JSON after a valid X-PAYMENT. It does not describe response contents or failure modes beyond 402, but the core payment-gated behavior is clear.
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 endpoint and payment requirement. Every sentence conveys operational information, though 'Not a new SKU' is somewhat cryptic and could be clarified or removed.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, and the description provides the essential context: payment amount, recipient, HTTP behavior, and response type. It lacks detail on the JSON structure, but for a low-complexity paid endpoint this is a reasonably complete picture.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single x_payment parameter is already well documented as an optional X-PAYMENT header value. The description reinforces that a valid X-PAYMENT unlocks JSON but adds little meaning 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 a specific HTTP GET endpoint and resource ('USCG D7 / Southeast LNM') and indicates it returns JSON after payment. The 'mariners-d7' naming plus 'USCG D7' distinguishes it from sibling tools like mariners-d8 and mariners-d11, though the description does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The phrase 'Not a new SKU' hints at product positioning but does not help an agent decide between mariners-d7 and related mariners 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.