LION - Trend Intent MCP + Marketplace Visibility Audit
Server Details
x402-paid MCP data: trend feed + visibility audit. USDC/Base. No API key. No PII.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one for marketplace visibility audit, and two for trend intent signals in different formats (CSV and JSON). There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'lion_' prefix followed by a descriptive snake_case name. The naming is clear and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to two core functions: a marketplace audit and a trend intent signal feed. This is appropriate for a focused service.
The server covers its stated purpose completely: it provides the audit tool and both JSON and CSV formats for the signal data. No obvious gaps are present for the intended use cases.
Available Tools
3 toolslion_marketplace_visibility_auditAInspect
Run a public-beta x402-paid Marketplace Visibility Audit for an x402/MCP service URL. Diagnoses discoverability, payability, and registry presence (well-known/x402.json, live 402 body, payment-terms extraction, x402scan listing, MCP Registry listing, machine-discovery files). Returns the paid x402 endpoint URL and exact payment instructions (0.05 USDC on Base eip155:8453). This tool does NOT perform payment; the agent settles the x402 invoice directly with its own wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTPS x402/MCP service URL to audit. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | |
| payTo | Yes | |
| amount | Yes | |
| scheme | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| network | Yes | |
| price_usdc | Yes | |
| instructions | Yes | |
| paid_endpoint_url | Yes | |
| external_paid_proof | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
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 discloses that the tool returns the paid endpoint URL and payment instructions, and explicitly states it does not perform payment. It lists the areas diagnosed (well-known files, live body, etc.). However, it does not mention if there are any side effects, rate limits, or read-only nature, which would be expected for an audit tool.
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 moderately concise and front-loads the main action. Each sentence adds value: the first sentence states the purpose, the second lists diagnostics, the third states return value and boundary. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has a single required parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides comprehensive context. It explains exactly what the tool does, what it diagnoses, what it returns, and what it does not do. The behavioral boundary (no payment) is critical and clearly stated.
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 input schema has one parameter ('url') with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by describing the parameter as 'Public HTTPS x402/MCP service URL to audit,' which is already present in the schema's description. The description does not add significant additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Run a public-beta x402-paid Marketplace Visibility Audit for an x402/MCP service URL.' It specifies the action (run audit), the resource (service URL), and lists specific diagnostics (discoverability, payability, registry presence). The siblings are unrelated trend intent tools, so differentiation is clear.
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 explains what the tool diagnoses and explicitly states that it does NOT perform payment: 'This tool does NOT perform payment; the agent settles the x402 invoice directly with its own wallet.' This provides clear usage boundaries. It could be improved by explicitly stating when to use versus alternatives, but given siblings are unrelated, it's sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lion_trend_intent_signal_csvAInspect
Hardware-wallet buyer-intent + self-custody onboarding-friction intelligence as flat CSV. Same column set as the JSON variant: Ledger vs Trezor comparison demand, Bitcoin-only wallet research, under-$100 wallet shopper queries, DeFi hardware-wallet intent, decision-stage crypto purchase research. Optimised for spreadsheet / pipeline ingestion and affiliate-routing or comparison-research workflows. Pay $0.01 USDC on Base mainnet via x402 at the paid route. tools/call returns payment-required metadata only; settle the invoice at the paid route to fetch the CSV.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Transparent about the payment mechanism ($0.01 USDC via x402 on Base mainnet) and that the tool returns payment-required metadata, requiring a separate fetch from the paid route for the actual CSV. No contradictions with missing annotations.
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?
Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then data content, use cases, and payment instructions. Slightly wordy but efficient for the information conveyed.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description details the data columns and use cases, and explains the payment flow. Covers all necessary aspects for a parameterless tool.
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?
Input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but this is not needed 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?
Clearly states the tool returns a flat CSV of hardware-wallet buyer-intent and onboarding-friction intelligence, distinguishing it from the JSON sibling by specifying the output format and use cases.
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?
Provides context for when to use CSV (spreadsheet/pipeline ingestion, affiliate-routing, comparison-research) and implies the JSON variant is for other needs. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the use cases are clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lion_trend_intent_signal_jsonAInspect
Hardware-wallet buyer-intent + self-custody onboarding-friction intelligence as JSON. Non-PII public-signal feed covering: Ledger vs Trezor comparison demand, Bitcoin-only wallet research, under-$100 wallet shopper queries, DeFi hardware-wallet intent, and adjacent decision-stage crypto purchase research. Designed for agent routing, affiliate / comparison-content workflows, and research context. Pay $0.01 USDC on Base mainnet via x402 (HTTP 402 + EIP-3009 transferWithAuthorization) at the paid route. This MCP tool does NOT return the dataset; tools/call returns payment-required metadata so an x402-capable client can settle and fetch the JSON directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently discloses that the tool does not return the dataset directly, but rather payment-required metadata for an x402-capable client to settle. This behavioral trait is clearly communicated, and no annotations are provided.
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 front-loaded with data categories and use cases, but includes necessary details about the payment mechanism and limitations. It is slightly verbose but not excessively so.
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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, data content, limitations, and payment requirements, making it complete for an agent to decide usage.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. With schema coverage at 100% (no properties), a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool provides 'Hardware-wallet buyer-intent + self-custody onboarding-friction intelligence as JSON' and lists specific data categories. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'lion_trend_intent_signal_csv' by format.
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 mentions it is designed for 'agent routing, affiliate / comparison-content workflows, and research context' and explains the payment mechanism (x402). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!