Skip to main content
Glama

TensorFeed

by ai.tensorfeed

whats_new

PREMIUM (1 credit, $0.02). The full TensorFeed morning brief: every AI headline in the window with links, model pricing deltas, and incident detail, AFTA-signed. The free preview sibling (/api/preview/whats-new, 10 calls/IP/day) returns only summary counts plus the top 3 headline titles; this paid call returns the complete brief with no rate limit. Pay per call with an x402 wallet payment (arguments.payment, or an X-PAYMENT header; strict HTTP-402 transport at https://mcp.tensorfeed.ai/mcp?x402=strict) or use an Authorization: Bearer tf_live_... credits token. No token and no USDC? Claim free trial credits by signing a wallet message at https://tensorfeed.ai/api/payment/trial-credits. Returning caller? Pass since= from your last brief and an unchanged poll is free (no credit charged); you pay only when something new has broken since that cursor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLookback window in days. Default 1.
sinceNoCursor from your last paid brief (returned as the `poll` continuation on every paid call). Pass it back and an unchanged poll returns for free: no credit is charged. You are billed only when something new has broken since that cursor.
paymentNoOptional base64 x402 payment payload (the same string an X-PAYMENT header would carry). Sign against the accepts[0] requirement returned by an unpaid call. Alternative to the Bearer credits token.
news_limitNoMaximum headlines returned. Default 10.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is paid, requires credits or payment, supports polling for free unchanged briefs, and returns a signed brief. It does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but the context implies it. Could be improved by stating safety characteristics.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is relatively long due to necessary complexity around payment and polling, but it is front-loaded with the premium nature. Every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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 lack of output schema, the description mentions what the brief includes (headlines, model pricing deltas, incident detail, AFTA-signed) but not the structure. It covers payment, polling, and distinction from siblings well. Lacks explicit response format, but overall 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema, especially for the 'since' parameter (explaining free polling) and 'payment' parameter. This enhances agent understanding of parameter usage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it returns the full TensorFeed morning brief with headlines, model pricing deltas, and incident detail. It distinguishes from the free preview sibling. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', so purpose is slightly implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly explains when to use the paid tool versus the free preview sibling, details the polling mechanism with the since parameter to avoid charges for unchanged briefs, and covers all payment options (x402 wallet, Bearer token, free trial credits). This is comprehensive and actionable.

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

All TensorFeed toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several security/vulnerability tools (check_ai_supply_chain_risk, get_cve_record, get_osv_advisory_by_id, get_osv_advisory_for_package) have overlapping purposes, making it potentially confusing to choose the right one. Other tools are more distinct, but the ambiguity in this cluster lowers the score.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but the verbs are inconsistent (check, get, list, lookup, query, register, route, search, submit, whats_new). Some tools use 'get' while others use 'check' for similar retrieval actions, and 'whats_new' does not fit the verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 27 tools, the count exceeds the 25 threshold for 'too many', even though the broad scope spans many domains. The sheer number makes the server feel heavy and harder to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of data domains, but notable gaps exist: no management of watch subscriptions (only register), no CVE search, and no model search. Write operations are minimal, leaving some workflows incomplete.

Resources