YourAITools MCP Hub

CryptoPrice: Top 24h crypto gainers and losers

crypto_movers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Top 24h gainers, losers and volume leaders across ~200 coins (min 24h volume default $1M). Free: 30 calls/day per IP, then $0.002 per call.

[CryptoPrice via YourAITools MCP Hub] Free tier: same as CryptoPrice's own MCP server (call without payment and without tier). Paid: movers $0.002 per call, with a credits key (Authorization: Bearer yatc_...) or x402 (USDC; the hub returns the payment terms). Failed tool calls aren't charged: credits are refunded automatically and x402 payments only settle on success.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_movers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No	Paid tier: movers $0.002. Omit tier (with no credits key or x402 payment) to use the free tier.
`limit`	No	Rows per list (default 10)
`min_volume_usd`	No	Skip markets under this 24h USD volume (default 1000000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  10
+]
```
AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds substantial context beyond those annotations: the coin universe, the default minimum volume, free-tier limits of 30 calls per day per IP, paid pricing, accepted authorization methods, and refund behavior for failed calls.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, and the pricing and authentication details are relevant. However, free and paid pricing is repeated across the first sentence and the hub paragraph, making the description longer than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description still provides enough context: the list categories, approximate coverage, default filtering, cost, authentication, and failure behavior. It does not describe the exact returned fields, but it is otherwise complete for calling the tool 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%, and all three parameters are documented with descriptions, defaults, limits, and an enum. The description reinforces the default minimum volume but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool returns top 24h gainers, losers, and volume leaders across about 200 coins. It defines the resource and scope well, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the sibling crypto_price tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The usage context is implied by the stated purpose, and the description explains free versus paid access. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crypto_price, and it names no exclusions.

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

All YourAITools MCP Hub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?