Paid pre-submit integrity gate for crypto bots using live Coinbase and Gemini checks.
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.
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools are related but have clear distinctions: delta_peek is a free preliminary check for coverage and price, while delta_preflight is a paid integrity check producing a signed result. The free/paid distinction and different purposes (preview vs. final sign-off) reduce ambiguity, though the similar naming and shared $0.01 USDC reference could cause occasional misselection.
Both tools follow the consistent pattern 'delta_[verb]' using snake_case (delta_peek, delta_preflight). The verb directly indicates the action, and the naming is uniform and predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal but not unreasonable for a focused preflight utility. The pair provides a natural free-then-paid flow, but the small count leaves it on the low end of appropriate for a server, bordering on thin.
The server covers the core preflight workflow: a free peek for coverage/price and a paid signed preflight for order-submission integrity. Missing features like historical result lookup or verification of the signed output are minor gaps that don't block the primary use case.
delta_peekPreview Butterfly Delta coverageAInspectFree. Check whether a USD spot pair is covered and inspect the exact $0.01 Base USDC preflight price before paying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trade | Yes | Execution policy for one intended USD-pair spot order. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Free' and that it provides a 'preflight price before paying', implying it does not execute a trade. However, it does not disclose what happens if the pair is not covered, or any other behavioral details like rate limits or data freshness. The description adds some value but could be more transparent about the tool's behavior.
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 concise, one sentence, and front-loaded with the key information: 'Free' and the purpose. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 nested object with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for a simple check tool. It explains the purpose and the free nature, but could mention what the output looks like or what 'covered' means. However, since the schema is rich and the tool is straightforward, the description is mostly complete.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'USD spot pair' and 'preflight price' but does not elaborate on the parameters like minHealthyVenues or maxVenueSpreadBps. Since the schema already covers the parameters, a baseline of 3 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's purpose: 'Check whether a USD spot pair is covered and inspect the exact $0.01 Base USDC preflight price before paying.' It uses specific verbs ('check', 'inspect') and identifies the resource (USD spot pair coverage and preflight price). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'delta_preflight' by emphasizing the free preview aspect and the exact price before payment.
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 implies when to use this tool: before paying for a preflight, to check coverage and price. It mentions 'before paying' which gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative 'delta_preflight' for comparison. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delta_preflightGate a crypto order before submissionAInspectPaid via x402 or MPP: $0.01 USDC on Base. Send the exact order venue, side, and size immediately before submission to obtain a signed PASS, BLOCK, or UNKNOWN from live availability, spread, freshness, depth, slippage, and divergence checks. Fail closed on BLOCK or UNKNOWN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trade | Yes | Execution policy for one intended USD-pair spot order. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the $0.01 USDC payment cost, the live exchange checks, the three signed outcomes, and the important fail-closed behavior on BLOCK or UNKNOWN. This provides actionable behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 only three short sentences, each introducing distinct crucial facts: cost, use timing, and fail-closed semantics. There is no filler or repetition, and key information is easy to scan.
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 output schema, the description provides the essential expected outputs (PASS/BLOCK/UNKNOWN) and the fail-closed action. It leaves a little unsaid about response structure or edge cases, but it fully conveys how an agent should act, which is enough for the tool's purpose.
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?
Schema description coverage is reported as 100% for the single trade parameter, so the schema itself carries the parameter details. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but that is acceptable because the trade object and pair are documented in the schema; a baseline 3 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 title and description clearly state the tool is a pre-submission gate that obtains signed PASS, BLOCK, or UNKNOWN results from live Coinbase and Gemini integrity checks. This specifies a concrete verb/resource pair and makes its unique role against the sibling delta_peek apparent.
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 explicitly says 'Immediately before every order submission,' which gives clear timing guidance. It does not mention when to choose delta_peek instead or provide exclusions/alternatives, so it stops short of a fully explicit when/when-not comparison.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
