Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

Stablecoin Supply

stablecoins_supply

Stablecoins ranked by circulating supply (USDT, USDC, USDe, DAI...) with 1-day, 7-day and 30-day supply change, peg price, mechanism and main chains, plus total USD stablecoin supply. Use to track liquidity flowing into crypto.

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": "stablecoins_supply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only snapshot by describing returned metrics, but says nothing about data freshness/refresh cadence, how ranking ties are broken, or whether the aggregate total is independent of the limit. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordered-field list, then a use case. The parenthetical coin examples add identification value but border on filler.

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 an output schema present and only one optional parameter, the description only needs to establish scope and contents, which it does well. The remaining gap is the unexplained `limit` and unspecified data freshness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single `limit` parameter (default 20) is never mentioned in the description. The agent can guess it caps the number of ranked stablecoins, but nothing confirms whether it also bounds the total-supply aggregate or what the maximum is.

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?

States a specific resource (stablecoins) and an explicit ordering (ranked by circulating supply), then enumerates the fields returned (1d/7d/30d supply change, peg price, mechanism, chains) plus an aggregate total. This clearly separates it from siblings like crypto_top_coins or token_total_supply, which cover different universes.

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?

"Use to track liquidity flowing into crypto" gives an implied use case but names no alternatives and no when-not conditions, even though close siblings (token_total_supply, crypto_top_coins, crypto_market_overview) exist. The agent must infer which tool answers a supply-liquidity question.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources