Home / Token cost / Execution Market

The Execution Market MCP server costs 15,304 tokens before the first call.

Connect Execution Market and its 38 tool definitions are loaded into the model's context on every request — 7.7% of a 200k window spent before your agent does anything.

QUICK ANSWER The Execution Market MCP server's tool definitions consume 15,304 tokens — 8.0× the median MCP server (1,905 tokens). A scoped grant exposing only the tools you use cuts that roughly in proportion.

MEASURED FROM SCHEMAS 38 tools · 15,304 tokens · 7.7% of 200k · 1.5% of 1M Method →

What that buys before your agent starts working.

Tool definitions are overhead: they occupy context on every request and compete with your code, documents and conversation history for the same window.

200K WINDOW 7.7%
1M WINDOW 1.5%

Corpus context: Execution Market ranks #89 of 3,213 measured MCP servers by definition cost. The median is 1,905 tokens, p90 is 7,952, and the heaviest (Fusionauth) is 183,337 — 92% of a 200k window on its own.

Where the 15,304 tokens go.

Each row is one tool definition as a tools/list entry — name, description and input schema — counted with o200k_base. Average: 403 tokens per tool.

ToolCategoryTokens% of server
em_publish_task Write 2,142 14.0%
em_batch_create_tasks Write 1,103 7.2%
em_resolve_dispute Write 695 4.5%
em_approve_submission Write 686 4.5%
em_get_tasks Read 643 4.2%
em_get_task_analytics Read 581 3.8%
em_submit_work Write 531 3.5%
em_assign_task Write 490 3.2%
em_withdraw_earnings Financial 479 3.1%
em_get_arbiter_verdict Read 473 3.1%
em_get_my_tasks Read 473 3.1%
em_escrow_recommend_strategy Read 455 3.0%
em_browse_agent_tasks Read 415 2.7%
em_escrow_authorize Read 400 2.6%
em_apply_to_task Write 397 2.6%
em_escrow_charge Financial 351 2.3%
em_escrow_dispute Read 334 2.2%
em_check_submission Read 326 2.1%
em_escrow_partial_release Read 308 2.0%
em_cancel_task Destructive 296 1.9%
em_escrow_release Destructive 289 1.9%
em_escrow_refund Financial 287 1.9%
em_submit_agent_work Write 279 1.8%
em_register_as_executor Write 269 1.8%
em_get_my_executions Read 260 1.7%
em_accept_agent_task Read 238 1.6%
em_get_task Read 237 1.5%
em_calculate_fee Read 229 1.5%
em_rate_worker Read 209 1.4%
em_get_reputation Read 208 1.4%
em_escrow_status Read 203 1.3%
em_register_identity Write 190 1.2%
em_get_payment_info Read 182 1.2%
em_rate_agent Read 177 1.2%
em_check_escrow_state Read 167 1.1%
em_check_identity Read 132 0.9%
em_get_fee_structure Read 100 0.7%
em_server_status Read 70 0.5%

Most agents use a handful of these tools. They pay for all 38.

A PolicyLayer grant exposes only the tools you allow — ungranted definitions are filtered out of the tool list, so they never enter the context window. Estimates below assume typical-weight tools (403 tokens each).

Grant scopeDefinition costReduction
All 38 tools (no gateway) 15,304 tokens
3 granted tools ~1,208 tokens −92%
5 granted tools ~2,014 tokens −87%
10 granted tools ~4,027 tokens −74%

Execution Market token-cost questions.

How many tokens does the Execution Market MCP server use?+

Its 38 tool definitions total 15,304 tokens — 7.7% of a 200k context window — measured with tiktoken o200k_base over the serialised tools/list payload. Exact counts vary slightly by client and model.

Why does Execution Market consume tokens before I send a message?+

MCP clients load every connected server's tool definitions — name, description, and input schema — into the model's context so it knows what it can call. That payload is charged against your context window on every request, whether or not a tool is used.

How do I reduce Execution Market's token usage?+

Expose fewer tools. A PolicyLayer grant scopes Execution Market to only the tools you allow — ungranted definitions are filtered out of the tool list, so they never enter the context window. A grant of 3 typical tools costs roughly 1,208 tokens, a 92% reduction.

Does deferred tool loading fix this?+

Partially, in some clients. Claude Code defers MCP tool schemas behind a tool-search step by default, and VS Code has experimental grouping — but you still pay tokens per search and reload, and Cursor, Windsurf and Gemini CLI load definitions upfront. Reducing the exposed tool set cuts the cost in every client.

How these numbers were measured.

01
Serialisation

Each tool is serialised as a tools/list entry — name, description, input schema — from the schemas in the PolicyLayer scan database. Clients differ slightly in framing, so treat counts as close estimates.

02
Tokeniser

tiktoken o200k_base (GPT-4o/o-series). Anthropic's current tokeniser isn't published, so Claude's exact counts will differ; for English text and JSON schemas the totals are close enough to treat these as estimates.

03
Deferred loading

Some clients now defer schema loading (Claude Code's tool search; VS Code experimental grouping). You still pay per search and reload — and Cursor, Windsurf and Gemini CLI load everything upfront.

Computed 07-06-2026 from the PolicyLayer scan database over all 38 catalogued Execution Market tools. Counts refresh with every site build.

Expose only the tools you use — the rest never enter your context.

A PolicyLayer grant scopes Execution Market to the tools you actually allow. Ungranted definitions never load, and every call that does run is checked against policy first.

Free to start. No card required.

4,600+ MCP servers and 31,000+ tools scanned and risk-classified.

// GET IN TOUCH

Have a question or want to learn more? Send us a message.

Message sent.

We'll get back to you soon.