Get current size and shape of the agent tool market: how many paid x402 endpoints and MCP servers exist, how many have real paying users, and total measured spend over the last 30 days. Useful for deciding whether a capability is well supplied before you build it yourself. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the 30-day window and that the tool is 'Free,' but does not describe the output format or authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and the stats context but not explicitly stated.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and purpose. The second sentence provides a use case and cost note, both valuable. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key information: what is measured, the time window, and a use case. It is complete for an AI agent to decide when to invoke it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed. Baseline 4 for zero parameters 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the agent tool market' with concrete metrics (paid x402 endpoints, MCP servers, paying users, spend). This clearly distinguishes from the sibling find_agent_tools, which searches for individual tools.
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?
Provides a clear use case: 'deciding whether a capability is well supplied before you build it yourself.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and actionable.
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.
The two tools are clearly distinct: one provides aggregate market statistics (counts, spend), while the other searches for specific usable tools. There is no functional overlap between them.
With only two tools, patterns are sparse. 'find_agent_tools' uses a verb-first style, while 'agent_market_stats' is noun-heavy, creating a slight inconsistency in naming convention.
Only 2 tools feels thin, but the server's scope is narrow: finding tools and viewing market stats. This is a reasonable minimal set for that purpose, not over- or under-engineered.
For the stated purpose of discovering agent-callable tools and understanding market supply, the coverage is adequate. Search provides access to all tool details, and stats gives the market context. Minor gap: no explicit capability to retrieve a single tool by ID, but search covers that.