Skip to main content
Glama

Central Command

by co.supabase.rtcelwjnrbmfmrywacky

Multi-Chain EVM RPC Gateway

cc.wallet_browser_proxy
Read-onlyIdempotent

Call cc.wallet_browser_proxy — Multi-chain EVM RPC forwarder supporting Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, and BSC. One endpoint, six chains. Purpose: Multi-chain EVM RPC forwarder supporting Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, and BSC. One endpoint, six chains. Behavior: READ-ONLY. Does not place orders, move funds, or mutate your exchange account. Live / near-real-time data. Auth: X-Api-Key or x402 payment proof (X-PAYMENT / __x_payment). Anonymous unauthenticated calls receive HTTP 402 with payment accepts. Cost: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402 Base USDC pay-per-use or prepaid X-Api-Key balance). Linked Connect keys are free. This is billing, not a side effect. Rate limit: 120/min (per API key). Tier: standard. Returns: Standard EVM JSON-RPC response for any method on any supported chain. Guidelines: Forward JSON-RPC only. Prefer eth_call / read methods. Sending raw signed txs is possible if you pass them — that is your responsibility. Tags: evm, ethereum, base, arbitrum, polygon, rpc, multi-chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc Required.
methodYesParameter `method` (string). Required.
paramsYesParameter `params` (array). Required.
__x_paymentNoOptional x402 payment proof (same value as X-PAYMENT header). Use when retrying after HTTP 402 if your MCP client cannot set custom headers. Not a business parameter. Optional.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the gateway HTTP status is 2xx.
dataNoParsed JSON body from the endpoint (shape varies by slug).
errorNoError message when ok is false.
statusYesUpstream HTTP status from x402-gateway.
billingNoOptional payment / cost metadata when present.
endpointYesCatalog slug that was invoked (e.g. funding-rates).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description explicitly states READ-ONLY, no order placement or fund movement, and mentions billing and rate limits. This adds significant context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then behavior, auth, cost, rate limit, guidelines. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.

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 annotations and output schema existence, description covers purpose, behavior, auth, cost, rate limits, and return type. Complete for a multi-chain RPC gateway.

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% with parameter descriptions. Description adds context for __x_payment (retry after 402) and clarifies that extras are ignored. Adds value beyond 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?

Description clearly states it's a multi-chain EVM RPC forwarder supporting six chains. It uses specific verbs ('forward', 'call') and distinguishes from sibling RPC tools like Solana RPC.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use: preferring eth_call/read methods, and notes that sending raw signed txs is possible but user's responsibility. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is clear in context.

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

All Central Command 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools serve overlapping purposes, such as multiple Coinglass data tools (cc.coinglass_data, cc.funding_rates, cc.open_interest, etc.) and multiple AI chat assistants (cc.squirrel_chat, cc.squirrel_chat_v2, cc.openclaw_chat). The distinctions are subtle, likely causing agent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `cc.<snake_case>` pattern, with verbs like `list_catalog`, `cc.ma_fetch`, and `cc.trade_builder`. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side but reasonable for a comprehensive crypto trading platform. However, significant redundancy (e.g., multiple data sources for similar indicators) suggests some could be consolidated, making the surface feel heavier than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most aspects of crypto trading: market data, technical indicators, signals, execution, backtesting, AI analysis, and blockchain RPC. Minor gaps exist (e.g., portfolio management), but the surface is largely complete for the intended domain.

Resources