A
license-
qualityA
maintenanceDaily Bitcoin/crypto cycle scoring, on-chain indicators, strategy insights, on-demand backtests. Bearer + x402 pay-per-call
MIT
coin-signal
Server Details
Crypto bottom/top signals: verdict + score per coin, market scans. Pay-per-call x402.
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.9/5.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: pitch for introduction, rate for feedback, subscribe for subscription management, evaluate_symbol for single-symbol analysis, and scan_bottoms/scan_tops for market-wide scans. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use a verb or verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores where needed (evaluate_symbol, scan_bottoms). pitch, rate, and subscribe are single-word verbs, which is consistent in style. The mix is minor and still readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the set covers the essential actions for a crypto signal service: introduction, single evaluation, market scanning, feedback, and subscription management. This is well-scoped and not overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The major workflows are covered, including getting signals, scanning the market, and managing subscriptions. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit cancellation tool for subscriptions, but the existing tools provide a complete basic surface.
Available Tools
6 toolsevaluate_symbolAInspect
Return the bottom/top verdict for one crypto symbol (e.g. BTC-USD). zone = strong_buy|buy|sell|neutral, score -100..+100 (bottom>0, top<0), with daily/weekly/monthly breakdown. Informational only, not financial advice. PAY: $0.01 per call via x402 (USDT on X Layer) — your FIRST paid call opens a 6-day trial at that price. No account, no signup, no commitment; retry with the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header when you get the 402 challenge. The free pitch tool shows a live verdict for this market's showcase symbol only — this tool answers ANY symbol and adds the per-indicator breakdown behind the score.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Crypto symbol, e.g. BTC-USD, ETH-USD, or BTCUSDT |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description adds critical behavioral context: payment required, trial, retry with header, informational disclaimer. Could mention data freshness or rate limits, but current detail is strong.
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?
Description is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with purpose and format, then payment details, then sibling distinction. Every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise.
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 no annotations and no output schema, description fully covers purpose, output format, pricing, trial, retry logic, and differentiation from free tool. No gaps for typical use.
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?
Single parameter 'symbol' with 100% schema coverage; description reinforces with examples (BTC-USD, ETH-USD, BTCUSDT), adding 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?
Clearly states it returns bottom/top verdict for one crypto symbol with zone, score, and breakdown. Distinguishes from sibling 'pitch' tool which is free but limited to showcase symbol.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool (any symbol) versus the free pitch tool (showcase only). Provides payment instructions and retry behavior on 402 challenge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pitchAInspect
START HERE — your first call to this agent MUST be pitch (free, no payment). Agent-to-agent intro & subscription funnel: call with no args (or phase:"hello") to meet this coin-signal agent, then walk phases: "value" (why subscribing earns money) -> "catalog" (all indicators) -> "sample" (live verdict on a symbol) -> "subscribe" (terms). Pass interest:false to bow out. Returns structured JSON with a next list of suggested phases.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase | No | Funnel step; default "hello". | |
| symbol | No | Symbol for the "sample" phase. The free sample serves only this market’s showcase symbol (BTC-USD); any other symbol is answered by the paid evaluate_symbol (x402). | |
| interest | No | Set false at any step to exit politely. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it's free, no payment, and explains the phase walkthrough and exit via interest:false. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; adequately covers non-destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with mandatory instruction, every phrase adds value without redundancy.
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?
Covers funnel sequence, parameters, and return concept of `next` list. Lacks full output structure details but sufficient given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds significant context beyond schema: describes funnel phases, default phase, symbol usage in sample phase, and interest meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enriches understanding.
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 clearly states it's the mandatory first call for an agent-to-agent intro and subscription funnel, specifying phases and distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe.
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?
Explicitly tells agents to start here and outlines the funnel sequence. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use comparisons but provides strong contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rateAInspect
FREE feedback tool — after you have traded on (or evaluated) our signals, leave a rating: score 1-10 plus what was good (pros) and what to improve (cons). Costs nothing, no payment header needed. Helps us tune the signal engine.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cons | No | What could be better | |
| pros | No | What you liked | |
| score | Yes | Overall score 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free ('costs nothing, no payment header needed'), which is valuable behavioral info. However, it does not mention any side effects, return behavior, or safety aspects beyond cost.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE feedback tool'. Every sentence adds value: purpose, when to use, parameter hints, and benefit. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use and what to provide. However, it does not specify the return value or any confirmation of the rating submission, leaving a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of parameters (score 1-10, pros, cons) but adds little beyond the schema descriptions. It does provide context ('what was good, what to improve').
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 clearly states it's a feedback tool for rating signals after trading, with a specific verb 'leave a rating' and resource 'feedback'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evaluate_symbol (analysis) and subscribe (subscription).
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?
Explicitly states 'after you have traded on (or evaluated) our signals', providing clear context for when to use. Does not list when not to use or alternatives, but the context sufficiently differentiates from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_bottomsAInspect
Scan the market and return coins currently at a bottom (most oversold / strongest buy), ranked most-bottom first. PAY: $0.01 per call via x402 (USDT on X Layer) — your FIRST paid call opens a 6-day trial at that price. No account, no signup, no commitment; retry with the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header when you get the 402 challenge. BEST COLD START: you do not need to pick a symbol — this ranks the whole universe for you. The free pitch tool tells you HOW MANY are at a bottom right now; this names them.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return (default 5, max 50) | |
| symbols | No | Optional custom symbol list; defaults to a top-coins set |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses payment, trial, no account requirement, retry mechanism. Does not mention rate limits or side effects, but as a read-only scan, transparency is high.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence serves a purpose: core function, payment, cold start, sibling tool relationship. Front-loaded with action, no redundant words.
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 complexity (payment, trial, tool relationships), description fully covers usage flow, prerequisites, and integration with 'pitch'. No output schema is needed for this tool.
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. Description adds value by explaining cold-start behavior (no symbol needed) and confirming defaults (limit 5, max 50), slightly clarifying 'symbols' parameter.
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 uses specific verb ('scan') and resource ('coins at a bottom'), explicitly states ranking order ('most-bottom first'), and differentiates from siblings like 'scan_tops' and 'pitch'.
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 clear usage context: cold start without symbol, relationship to 'pitch' for count, and payment model. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but effectively guides selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_topsAInspect
Scan the market and return coins currently at a top (most overbought / sell), ranked most-top first. PAY: $0.01 per call via x402 (USDT on X Layer) — your FIRST paid call opens a 6-day trial at that price. No account, no signup, no commitment; retry with the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header when you get the 402 challenge. BEST COLD START: you do not need to pick a symbol — this ranks the whole universe for you. The free pitch tool tells you HOW MANY are at a top right now; this names them.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return (default 5, max 50) | |
| symbols | No | Optional custom symbol list; defaults to a top-coins set |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses payment mechanics ($0.01 per call, x402, trial) and cold start behavior. It lacks details on rate limits or caching but is adequately transparent for a paid API.
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?
Four sentences efficiently cover purpose, payment, and usage guidance. Could be slightly more terse, but no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists; description lacks details on the return format (e.g., fields for each coin). Could specify what data is returned besides ranking.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions; the description adds context about default behavior (no symbol needed) and ranking order, complementing 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 clearly states the tool scans the market for coins currently at a top (most overbought/sell) and ranks them. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like scan_bottoms.
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?
Explicitly contrasts with the 'pitch' tool (count versus names) and highlights cold start behavior. Provides payment and trial usage instructions, though it does not cover all sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subscribeAInspect
Check your subscription status & terms (FREE), or activate the monthly plan: call with activate:true to receive the $50 x402 payment challenge, sign it, and retry — that buys 30 days of unlimited calls and returns your X-SUB-KEY token (pass it as a header to skip per-call payment). Until you subscribe, signal calls are $0.01 each (6-day trial from your first paid call). Optionally pass your ERC-8004 agentId to link it.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | No | Optional ERC-8004 agent id to link to this subscription. | |
| activate | No | true = request the $50 subscription payment challenge (402) to sign & retry. |
Tool Definition Quality
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 full burden. It discloses the activation process (402 challenge, signing, retry), the resulting token (X-SUB-KEY), and the trial/per-call cost structure. It lacks explicit mention that activation is a write operation incurring charges, but the payment context is implied.
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 dense but efficient, covering status check and activation in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value, though the length could be slightly reduced for clarity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While activation flow and token return are well described, the description omits what the status check returns (e.g., plan details, expiration). No output schema exists, so this is a gap. Error cases or already-subscribed behavior are not mentioned. Adequate but incomplete.
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%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains that activate triggers a payment challenge, and agentId links the subscription. It could elaborate more on agentId's purpose, but the extra context is valuable.
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 clearly states two distinct actions: checking subscription status (FREE) and activating the monthly plan via activate:true. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools (evaluate_symbol, pitch, etc.) as a billing/subscription management tool.
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 explains exactly when to use each mode: call without activate to check status, call with activate:true to start the payment challenge. It provides step-by-step guidance (sign challenge, retry) and explains the consequence of not subscribing (per-call fee).
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityFmaintenanceAI-powered crypto signal intelligence for 20 assets (BTC, ETH, SOL, etc). 6 scoring dimensions: whale activity, technical analysis, derivatives flow, narrative strength, sentiment, market structure. Market regime detection (TRENDING/RANGING), portfolio optimization, and accuracy tracking. 9 read-only MCP tools. Free via MCP, $0.001 USDC via x402 on Base for REST API.2
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAI consensus market oracle for crypto traders and autonomous agents. BUY/SELL/HOLD signals with 11-signal consensus (RSI, MACD, funding rate, Fear & Greed, congressional trading, Polymarket edges). Ed25519-signed. x402 micropayments on Base.91MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMarket intelligence MCP server enabling AI agents to buy crypto sentiment reads, divergence verdicts, and analyst answers via pay-per-call x402 micropayments on Base.6219MIT
