Skip to main content
Glama

get_price

Read-only

Live crypto price for one product/denomination. Payment coins include USDT, USDC, BTC (incl. Lightning), ETH, SOL, DAI, PYUSD, LTC, TRX, TON, DOGE and SUI across many networks — call get_payment_methods for the current list. Never creates an order.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinYesPayment coin, e.g. USDC, USDT, BTC, SOL
dynamicYestrue for dynamic-range amounts, false for fixed denomination labels
networkYesExact network string from get_price/networks, e.g. "Solana", "Tron", "ETH Mainnet"
amount_usdYesUSD amount (for dynamic-range products)
brand_slugYesbrandSlug from search_products
country_codeYescountryCode from search_products
denomination_labelYesExact denomination label (e.g. "100 USD", "60 UC", "1 GB 7 days")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinYes
feePctNoFee percent over USD face value (0 for volatile coins)
networkYes
estimateNotrue = indicative only; exact amount fixed at order creation
payAmountYesAmount to pay in the chosen coin
faceValueUsdNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Never creates an order.' It adds that the price is 'live' and that the coin list is dynamic (pointing to get_payment_methods), which is useful context. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but given annotations cover safety, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place — the coin/network list and the read-only caveat are directly useful to an agent deciding to call this tool. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description covers what's needed: purpose, read-only nature, and coin-list source. It could mention the typical workflow (e.g., 'call search_products first'), but the schema hints at that. For a price query tool, this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, each with a clear description. The tool description adds value by clarifying that the coin list is not exhaustive ('Payment coins include... call get_payment_methods') and that dynamic ranges exist (explaining fixed vs dynamic denominations). This enriches the coin and dynamic parameters beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Live crypto price for one product/denomination,' a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_order by adding 'Never creates an order,' and from listing tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context: it's for getting a live price, and explicitly tells the agent to call get_payment_methods for the current coin list, which is a related tool. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the read-only nature and the pointer to get_payment_methods give practical guidance. No explicit exclusions beyond never creating an order.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes: listing currencies, payment methods, prices, brands, eSIM plans, products, searching, validating, creating, and checking order status. However, potential confusion between list_esim_plans and list_products for eSIM purchases, and search_products overlapping with list_brands/list_products, creates slight ambiguity. purchase_wizard serves as a fallback but is clearly labeled.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_currencies, get_order_status, get_payment_methods, get_price, list_brands, list_esim_plans, list_products, validate_order, create_order, search_products. 'purchase_wizard' deviates slightly as a noun phrase rather than verb_noun, but it's a distinct standalone tool.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools covering the full purchase lifecycle (browse, search, price, validate, create, status) plus payment configuration, the count is well-scoped for a payment/order platform. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is comprehensive: listing brands/products/eSIM plans, searching, getting prices and methods, validating and creating orders, and checking status. The flow from validate_order → create_order → get_order_status is complete, with fallback purchase_wizard covering widget-less scenarios. No major gaps.

Resources