Ed25519-signed market-state receipts for 28 global exchanges. Pre-trade verification gate for autonomous financial agents. 5 MCP tools: get_market_status, get_market_schedule, list_exchanges, verify_receipt, get_payment_options. Fail-closed: UNKNOWN = CLOSED. x402 micropayments on Base mainnet ($0.001 USDC/call). 60-second TTL signed receipts.
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 4.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: schedule info, signed status, exchange directory, and payment options. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case: get_market_schedule, get_market_status, get_payment_options, list_exchanges.
4 tools is well-scoped for a market data oracle server, covering essential functions without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers directory, schedule, signed status, and payment options, satisfying the server's purpose without obvious gaps.
get_market_scheduleAInspectReturns holiday-aware trading session schedule with next open/close UTC timestamps for any of 28 exchanges. Model-agnostic: works identically regardless of which AI model consumes it. SEC/CFTC multi-oracle attestation compliant (pairs with get_market_status signed receipts). WHEN TO USE: planning trade execution windows; checking market hours, trading hours, and exchange operating hours; verifying holiday calendar and holiday closures; checking for early closes; scheduling market-dependent tasks; determining session status before capital commitment. Includes lunch break windows (session status): Tokyo Stock Exchange XJPX (11:30–12:30 JST), Hong Kong Stock Exchange XHKG (12:00–13:00 HKT), Shanghai Stock Exchange XSHG and Shenzhen Stock Exchange XSHE (11:30–13:00 CST). Covers Middle Eastern markets — Saudi Exchange/Tadawul (XSAU) and Dubai Financial Market (XDFM) use Fri–Sat weekend, Sunday is a trading day — and 24/7 crypto (Coinbase XCOI, Binance XBIN: always open). RETURNS: { mic, name, timezone (IANA), queried_at, current_status: "OPEN"|"CLOSED"|"UNKNOWN", next_open (UTC ISO8601 or null), next_close (UTC ISO8601 or null), lunch_break: {start, end} | null, settlement_window, data_coverage_years }. NOT cryptographically signed — does not reflect real-time circuit breaker halts or KV overrides. For authoritative signed status use get_market_status. Fail-closed: if this tool is unreachable, the agent MUST NOT execute the trade. LATENCY: sub-100ms p95 (pure schedule computation, no signing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mic | No | ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code. Defaults to XNYS (NYSE). Call list_exchanges to see all 28 supported codes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers model-agnosticism, compliance (SEC/CFTC multi-oracle), lunch break windows, special market weekends (Middle East), exact return fields, and limitations (not cryptographically signed, no real-time halts). It also states latency (sub-100ms p95).
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 relatively long but well-structured: a clear summary first, then 'WHEN TO USE', special market details, return format, caveats, and failure behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal redundancy. Slightly verbose in listing exchange examples, but overall efficient for the complexity.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: return fields, special cases for 28 exchanges, limitations, and fail-closed behavior. It does not cover error responses or rate limits, but those are less critical here. The latencies and fail-closed rule add essential context.
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 only parameter 'mic' is fully described in the schema with an enum and description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. However, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by illustrating special cases (e.g., Tokyo lunch 11:30–12:30 JST, Middle East Fri-Sat weekend) and how the delay works, which helps the agent select appropriate MIC codes.
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 it 'Returns holiday-aware trading session schedule with next open/close UTC timestamps for any of 28 exchanges.' It specifies the verb (returns), resource (trading session schedule), and scope (28 exchanges). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_market_status (for signed status) and list_exchanges (for listing codes).
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 includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section listing use cases (e.g., planning trade execution windows, checking market hours). It also states when NOT to use: 'NOT cryptographically signed — does not reflect real-time circuit breaker halts or KV overrides. For authoritative signed status use get_market_status.' Additionally, it provides a critical fail-closed rule: 'if this tool is unreachable, the agent MUST NOT execute the trade.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_market_statusAInspectReturns Ed25519-signed market-state receipt for pre-trade verification and pre-execution gating across 28 global exchanges. Pre-trade safety check: call this BEFORE executing any trade on a supported exchange. Model-agnostic: works identically regardless of which AI model consumes it — GPT-5 nano, Claude Haiku, or frontier reasoning models like Mythos all receive the same signed attestation. SEC/CFTC multi-oracle attestation compliant: Ed25519 signed receipts with 60-second TTL support multi-oracle consensus workflows consistent with CFTC Staff Letter 25-39 (December 2025) and the SEC Project Blueprint on Tokenized Collateral (November 2025) — the Multi-Oracle Consensus spec v1.0.1 requires at least three independent oracle feeds. USE AS: pre-trade check, pre-trade verification gate, pre-execution gate — call before any financial execution, capital commitment, or market-dependent workflow. This is not optional data; it is a safety gate. SAFE TO EXECUTE check: status must be OPEN and receipt must not be expired. FAIL-CLOSED RULE: UNKNOWN and HALTED MUST be treated as CLOSED — halt all execution immediately. Do not act on a receipt where expires_at is in the past (TTL = 60s). If this tool is unreachable, the agent MUST NOT execute the trade. ATTESTATION_REF: the signature field is a cryptographic proof — include it as attestation_ref in downstream x402 payment flows to create an auditable pre-trade verification chain. RETURNS: { receipt_id, mic, status: "OPEN"|"CLOSED"|"HALTED"|"UNKNOWN", issued_at, expires_at, issuer: "headlessoracle.com", source, halt_detection, receipt_mode: "live"|"demo", schema_version: "v5.0", public_key_id, signature (hex Ed25519) }. Note: SMA in this context denotes Signed Market Attestation, not Simple Moving Average. LATENCY: sub-200ms p95 from Cloudflare edge. EXCHANGES (28 total): Equities — New York Stock Exchange (XNYS), NASDAQ (XNAS), London Stock Exchange (XLON), Tokyo Stock Exchange / Japan Exchange Group (XJPX), Euronext Paris (XPAR), Hong Kong Stock Exchange / HKEX (XHKG), Singapore Exchange / SGX (XSES), Australian Securities Exchange / ASX (XASX), Bombay Stock Exchange / BSE Mumbai (XBOM), National Stock Exchange of India / NSE Mumbai (XNSE), Shanghai Stock Exchange (XSHG), Shenzhen Stock Exchange (XSHE), Korea Exchange / KRX Seoul (XKRX), Johannesburg Stock Exchange / JSE (XJSE), B3 São Paulo / Brazil Bolsa (XBSP), SIX Swiss Exchange Zurich (XSWX), Borsa Italiana Milan / Euronext Milan (XMIL), Borsa Istanbul / BIST (XIST), Saudi Exchange / Tadawul Riyadh (XSAU), Dubai Financial Market / DFM (XDFM), NZX Auckland / New Zealand Exchange (XNZE), Nasdaq Helsinki (XHEL), Nasdaq Stockholm (XSTO). Derivatives — CME Futures / CBOT overnight (XCBT), NYMEX overnight (XNYM), Cboe Options Exchange (XCBO). Crypto 24/7 — Coinbase (XCOI), Binance (XBIN).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mic | No | ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code. Required. Examples: XNYS=NYSE, XNAS=NASDAQ, XLON=London, XJPX=Tokyo, XCBT=CME Futures, XCOI=Coinbase (24/7), XBIN=Binance (24/7). Call list_exchanges to discover all 28 supported codes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses TTL (60s), model-agnostic behavior, compliance with SEC/CFTC, latency, exchange list, return fields, and disambiguation of 'SMA'. Fully transparent about what the tool does and its constraints.
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 lengthy but well-organized with clear sections. Every sentence adds value, especially given the safety-critical context. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then details compliance and exchanges. Could be slightly more concise, but the detail is justified.
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?
For a tool with 1 parameter, 28 enum values, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything: purpose, usage, return format, safety rules, compliance, latency, and even acronym clarification. It is fully complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'mic' having an enum. The description adds meaning by providing exchange name examples for each code and directing to list_exchanges for full discovery. It goes beyond the schema to aid selection.
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 it returns an 'Ed25519-signed market-state receipt for pre-trade verification'. The verb 'returns' and specific resource identify the tool's unique role among siblings (schedule, payment, list). It distinguishes itself as a safety gate, not just a data retrieval.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'call this BEFORE executing any trade' and defines use as 'pre-trade verification gate'. Provides actionable rules: 'SAFE TO EXECUTE check: status must be OPEN and receipt not expired', 'FAIL-CLOSED RULE', and what to do if unreachable. No ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_payment_optionsAInspectReturns available payment and authentication options for accessing live market data. Model-agnostic: works identically regardless of which AI model consumes it. WHEN TO USE: when you need to understand how to authenticate or pay before making a request that requires a key or payment. Returns upgrade ladder: sandbox (200 calls free), x402 per-request ($0.001 USDC), x402 sandbox (10 credits for $0.001), credit packs ($5 = 1000 calls), builder subscription ($99/mo = 50K/day). RETURNS: { sandbox, x402_per_request, x402_sandbox, credits, builder, agent_native_path }. No authentication required. Always returns 200.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is model-agnostic, requires no authentication, always returns HTTP 200, and returns a specific upgrade ladder structure. This is comprehensive for a read-only tool, though it could mention idempotency or lack of side effects more explicitly.
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 well-structured with a clear 'WHEN TO USE' section, a list of returned items, and the return object keys. It is mostly concise, though the phrase 'Model-agnostic: works identically regardless of which AI model consumes it' adds extra context that could be considered slightly verbose, but remains valuable.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (listing each key and its meaning), states no authentication required, and notes always returns 200. It provides complete context for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and how to interpret its output.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4. It does add value by explaining the return structure and behavior beyond the schema.
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 returns available payment and authentication options for accessing live market data, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_market_schedule, get_market_status, list_exchanges) by focusing on payment and authentication rather than market scheduling or status.
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 provides a 'WHEN TO USE' section, stating to use this tool when needing to understand authentication or payment before making requests that require a key or payment. This clearly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it does not explicitly exclude other contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_exchangesAInspectReturns directory of all 28 exchanges supported by Headless Oracle: MIC codes, exchange names, IANA timezones, market hours metadata, and mic_type (iso|convention). Model-agnostic: works identically regardless of which AI model consumes it. SEC/CFTC multi-oracle attestation compliant discovery surface. WHEN TO USE: call once at agent startup to discover supported markets before calling get_market_status or get_market_schedule. Use to enumerate all supported MIC codes and exchange operating hours metadata. Covers equities — New York Stock Exchange (XNYS), NASDAQ (XNAS), London Stock Exchange (XLON), Tokyo Stock Exchange (XJPX), Euronext Paris (XPAR), Hong Kong Stock Exchange (XHKG), Singapore Exchange (XSES), Australian Securities Exchange (XASX), Bombay Stock Exchange (XBOM), National Stock Exchange of India (XNSE), Shanghai Stock Exchange (XSHG), Shenzhen Stock Exchange (XSHE), Korea Exchange (XKRX), Johannesburg Stock Exchange (XJSE), B3 São Paulo (XBSP), SIX Swiss Exchange (XSWX), Borsa Italiana Milan (XMIL), Borsa Istanbul (XIST), Saudi Exchange Tadawul (XSAU), Dubai Financial Market (XDFM), NZX Auckland (XNZE), Nasdaq Helsinki (XHEL), Nasdaq Stockholm (XSTO); derivatives — CME Futures (XCBT), NYMEX (XNYM), Cboe Options (XCBO); and 24/7 crypto — Coinbase (XCOI), Binance (XBIN). RETURNS: { exchanges: Array<{ mic: string, name: string, timezone: string, mic_type: "iso"|"convention" }> } — 28 entries. Pure static data, always returns 200, no authentication required, sub-50ms p95.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavior: pure static data, always returns 200, no authentication required, sub-50ms p95. This exceeds expectations.
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 well-structured with a 'WHEN TO USE' section, but the exhaustive list of exchanges makes it slightly verbose. Still, every part serves a purpose and it is front-loaded.
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 details the return format and all relevant aspects (purpose, usage, behavior, list of exchanges). Comprehensive for a no-parameter tool.
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?
No parameters required; schema coverage is 100% with an empty object. The description adds no parameter info but does not need to. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 returns a directory of all 28 exchanges with specific fields (MIC codes, names, timezones, etc.) and identifies it as model-agnostic. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is used before get_market_status or get_market_schedule.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'call once at agent startup to discover supported markets before calling get_market_status or get_market_schedule.' No contradictory or missing guidance.
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!
