Live market for a CC0 asset by slug or contract — token price/FDV/liquidity/volume (Dexscreener+GeckoTerminal) or NFT floor/volume/owners (OpenSea). Synchronous JSON, $0.01/lookup. [PAID: $0.01 USDC per call via x402]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | A cc0pedia entry slug (e.g. 'mfergpt', 'ok-degen'). | |
| chain | No | Optional chain hint (base, ethereum). | |
| contract | No | Or a raw contract address (0x...). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses synchronous JSON response, $0.01 cost per lookup, payment method (x402), and the data types returned. However, it does not cover error handling (e.g., invalid slug), caching behavior, or the meaning of `additionalProperties: true` in the schema.
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 efficient sentences: the first defines function and output, the second adds cost and synchronicity. No redundancy, front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description adequately outlines return data (token vs NFT metrics) and sources. It explains the tool's purpose and cost model. Missing details include error responses, behavior when both slug and contract are provided, and handling of the `additionalProperties` flag.
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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (slug, chain, contract). The description adds context about using slug or contract for lookup and chain as a hint, but this does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 states it provides 'Live market for a CC0 asset' including specific metrics (price/FDV/liquidity/volume or floor/volume/owners) from named sources (Dexscreener+GeckoTerminal or OpenSea). The verb (query) and resource (market data) are explicit and it distinguishes from sibling reference/search 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?
The description implies use when current market data is needed via slug or contract. It is the only market-oriented tool among siblings, so context is clear, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons are provided.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: data query (cc0pedia*), market data, daily brief, art generation by specific artists, mfergpt interactions, and random card generation. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Names are consistently lowercase with hyphens, and within each subgroup (e.g., `-gen` for generation, `cc0pedia-` for data tools), patterns are clear. However, there is no single verb_noun pattern across all tools, with some being proper names (cc0-daily-brief) or suffixed with `-ask`, `-lore`, etc.
14 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose, covering CC0 data retrieval, art generation, and a chatbot. Each tool adds distinct value without overwhelming the set.
The server covers core operations: CC0 data lookup, search, verify, market, daily brief; four distinct art generation styles; mfergpt Q&A, lore, and image transformation; plus random card generation. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list available art styles or a general-purpose CC0 art explorer, but essential workflows are present.
