TRADING(info): portfolio value, allocation and concentration analysis. INFORMATION ONLY. holdings={"bitcoin":0.5,"ethereum":2}. [x402: 10.0 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | service input |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state that the tool is 'INFORMATION ONLY' and mentions pay-per-use via x402, which signals read-only behavior and cost. However, it does not disclose output shape, failure modes, or how the pay-per-use mechanism is applied.
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-loads the core purpose before adding constraints about informational use and payment. Some formatting is cryptic ('TRADING(info):'), but every sentence earns its place and the overall length is appropriate.
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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description mostly suffices: it tells what analysis is performed, that it is informational, and gives a sample input. Yet it never states what the response looks like, whether the input is expected as a JSON string, or what additional options exist, so an agent is left guessing about invocation details.
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 schema only says 'service input,' which is uninformative. The description goes beyond that by providing a concrete example, holdings={"bitcoin":0.5,"ethereum":2}, which hints at the expected input format. This gives the agent a meaningful starting point for constructing the input.
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 names a specific analysis service ('portfolio value, allocation and concentration analysis') and clearly flags it as 'INFORMATION ONLY.' It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like trading-signal or wallet-balance, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to infer what it does.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description implies it should be used when someone wants portfolio analysis, but it leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent without any cues.
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 set contains many trivially indistinct tools: ai-inference/inference, compress/comprimir, count-tokens/contar-tokens, detect-language/language-detect, and multiple overlapping OCR receipt variants. With 160 tools and pairs that differ only by language or suffix, an agent cannot reliably distinguish several capabilities.
Most names are readable lower-hyphen identifiers, but they mix action verbs, noun phrases, domain prefixes, pipeline suffixes, Spanish/English, and arbitrary demo/batch labels. There is a loose convention, but no consistent verb_noun pattern.
160 tools on one server is an extreme count and clearly unwieldy. Even as a marketplace, exposing every variant, demo, and composed bundle as a top-level MCP tool overwhelms agent selection and adds little distinct capability.
The set covers a huge range of text, image, audio, code, market, compliance, and content-workflow tasks, so many intents have some available tool. However, it is a grab-bag rather than a defined service surface, and the arbitrary demo/specialized variants make it unclear whether a needed operation truly exists or is just a duplicate.