List the paid API routes this same server offers, with prices and which ones need no input. The MCP tools here are free and general-purpose; the paid routes are specialised (on-chain token safety, live DEX prices, wallet intel, supply-chain scans). Payment is x402 over USDC on Base — no account or API key. Takes no arguments.
| 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 full burden. It states that the tool lists routes, takes no arguments, and that the MCP tools are free, implying this call is free and read-only. It also discloses payment details for the paid routes themselves. It does not mention output format or potential error behavior, but for a simple listing tool this is not a significant gap.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: what it lists, how it differs from free tools, and payment details. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.
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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the content (paid routes, prices, input needs), the context (free vs paid, specialized use cases), and the operational details (payment method, no account). An agent can decide to invoke it without further clarification.
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 and the schema is an empty object. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no arguments,' which matches the schema. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing more to add since no parameters exist.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List the paid API routes this same server offers, with prices and which ones need no input.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling data-lookup tools and indicates exactly what the tool does. The scope ('this same server') and the included details (prices, input requirements) add further precision.
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 clear context by contrasting the free MCP tools with specialized paid routes, and explains the payment method (x402 over USDC on Base) and that no account/API key is needed. It implies when to use this tool (when someone needs specialized on-chain, DEX, wallet, or supply-chain data) rather than the free general-purpose tools. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the distinction is strong enough.
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 clear, distinct purpose (air quality, country indicators, earthquakes, elevation, geocode, holidays, URL reading, web search, catalogue). The only overlap is that geocode already returns elevation, making the separate elevation tool redundant and potentially confusing.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern, mixing noun-based names (earthquakes, elevation) and verb_noun names (read_url, web_search). The style is uniform across the set, so naming is predictable and readable.
Nine tools is a reasonable count for a general-purpose data/web utility server. However, the set feels like a random assortment of free APIs rather than a coherent scoped collection, which slightly undermines the sense of appropriateness.
The server name 'tokenguard' implies a focus on token safety and blockchain intelligence, but the free tools cover unrelated domains (air quality, geocoding, holidays, web). The actual token-safety features are only mentioned in the paid_catalogue and are not exposed as MCP tools, leaving a significant gap between the server's apparent purpose and its actual capabilities.