Skip to main content
Glama

fingers

by co.fingersai

market_movers

Scan and RANK a whole chain's most-traded tokens by 24h price move — the biggest GAINERS or LOSERS right now. Use this whenever the question is about the TOP/BIGGEST mover(s), gainers, losers, what's pumping or dumping on a chain, NOT about one named token. Covers Solana, Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BSC, Robinhood. It ranks the liquid universe (the most-traded pools), so report the movers with their 24h % and volume, and note it's ranked among the chain's most-traded pools, not literally every token. In your answer ALWAYS state BOTH the window (last 24h) AND the universe (ranked among actively-traded on-chain DEX pools): other sources like CoinGecko's listed-coin filter scan a DIFFERENT universe (established coins and tokenized RWAs) over an often-unlabeled window and will name a different winner, so naming your universe and window up front stops a cross-check from looking like a contradiction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNowhich chain to scan: solana, base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc, or robinhood. Default solana.
limitNohow many to return (default 6, max 25).
directionNo'gainers' (default) for biggest risers, or 'losers' for biggest fallers.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: movers are ranked among the 'most-traded pools,' not literally every token. It also instructs the agent to always state the 24h window and the universe, which is important behavior for cross-checking. However, it does not mention response format, pagination, or error behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with purpose and is mostly dense with useful guidance. The final long sentence about CoinGecko is valuable but somewhat verbose and repetitive of the 'universe' point already made earlier, so it loses a point for conciseness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining what to report (24h % and volume), the exact universe/window to caveat, the supported chains, and how to frame results to avoid cross-source contradictions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and present results correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for chain, limit, and direction, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the chain list and gainers/losers concept but does not add new parameter-specific semantics 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Scan and RANK a whole chain's most-traded tokens by 24h price move.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from single-token or stock-focused siblings by saying it is 'NOT about one named token' and is for the 'TOP/BIGGEST mover(s), gainers, losers.'

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use this whenever the question is about the TOP/BIGGEST mover(s), gainers, losers...' and provides an exclusion: 'NOT about one named token.' It also contrasts with CoinGecko's different universe, helping the agent avoid cross-source contradictions.

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

All fingers 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools share the same core purpose (safety checks) differentiated mainly by chain or asset type, and descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish them most of the time. However, pairs like rug_check/rugcheck and deployer_check/deployer_reputation have overlapping purposes that could lead to misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a lowercase snake_case pattern with clear descriptors, but there are notable exceptions like 'rugcheck', 'defillama', and 'verify'. Additionally, the 'rug_check' vs 'rugcheck' pair is an obvious naming inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is excessive for any server. Even for a broad security/due-diligence purpose, many tools (especially the robinhood_* series) are highly specialized and could be consolidated into fewer actions.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is impressively comprehensive, covering token/NFT safety, transaction simulation, whale/address tracking, stock analysis, prediction markets, and project validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no ENS resolution or stock price history), but they are not critical for the server's core purpose.

Resources