Kristo Intelligence API MCP Server - sales and refund signals
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct data domain: integration health, market snapshot, and on-chain revenue. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other, eliminating ambiguity.
All tools follow the consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase (bot_status, market_stats, onchain_sales), making the naming pattern uniform and predictable.
With exactly 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its core purpose of providing status, market data, and sales evidence. Each tool serves a distinct need without redundancy.
The surface covers the primary data types promised by the service (bot health, market indicators, revenue proof). Minor potential gaps exist (e.g., historical sales detail beyond 100 rows), but the core workflows are well-supported.
Read-only operation — no side effects, no parameters. Returns the service's Telegram integration status as JSON: telegram_bot_running, telegram_token_configured, last_heartbeat, uptime_started, messages_sent, active_users, commands_processed, vip_invites_sent, plus the wallet state. Use it to confirm this service's own monitoring is alive (and its heartbeat recent) before trusting other outputs; use get_market_stats for market data or get_onchain_sales for provable revenue. Paid via x402 (HTTP 402 challenge with the exact USDC amount and receiver on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It states 'Read-only operation — no side effects, no parameters' which discloses safety, and further details the x402 payment mechanism (HTTP 402 challenge with USDC amount and receiver on Base). This is comprehensive for a status-check tool.
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 front-loaded with the most critical info (read-only, no params), then lists the return fields, then gives usage guidance, and ends with payment details. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy. It is informative yet efficient.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields, making the response format clear. It covers purpose, usage, payment, and field names. For a simple read-only status endpoint, nothing essential is missing.
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 input schema is empty (no parameters), and the description confirms 'no parameters'. While it doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, it explicitly reinforces the fact, which is helpful for agents that may not infer from an empty schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, so this score 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('service's Telegram integration status'), lists the exact fields, and explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming get_market_stats and get_onchain_sales with their distinct purposes. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
It provides explicit guidance: 'Use it to confirm this service's own monitoring is alive (and its heartbeat recent) before trusting other outputs', and then names alternatives for other data needs. This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read-only operation — no side effects, no parameters. Returns the live Base market snapshot: aggregated activity, daily request/sales counters, the official agent catalog, and real-time market data (CoinGecko, DEXScreener, Fear & Greed). Use it for market context and price/indicator lookups; use get_onchain_sales for paid-call revenue and get_bot_status for integration health. Paid via x402 (HTTP 402 challenge with the exact USDC amount and receiver on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It leads with 'Read-only operation — no side effects, no parameters,' clearly establishing safety. It also discloses the x402 HTTP 402 payment challenge and its exact requirements, which is important behavioral context. It does not detail response format, but it does list returned data categories.
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 three sentences, each with a distinct job: safety/no-parameters, return payload, and usage routing plus payment requirements. The critical 'read-only' attribute is front-loaded, followed by the resource being returned, and closes with actionable sibling and payment context. There is no filler or repeated schema information.
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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is returned, when to use it, how it is paid for, and which alternatives to use. It could specify the exact response shape more precisely, but the enumerated snapshot components are sufficient for an agent to call it 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema already shows an empty properties object, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly reaffirms 'no parameters,' which reinforces the schema and prevents an agent from inventing arguments. This adds a small amount of confirmation value but is largely redundant with the structured 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 states the tool 'Returns the live Base market snapshot' and enumerates the contained data categories (aggregated activity, daily counters, agent catalog, real-time market data). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming what get_onchain_sales and get_bot_status are for, giving agents immediate differentiation.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it for market context and price/indicator lookups.' It then names the exact alternative tools for other use cases (get_onchain_sales for paid-call revenue, get_bot_status for integration health), leaving no ambiguity about routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read-only operation — no side effects, no parameters. Returns the real on-chain payment history to this service's fee receiver on Base: total_volume_usd, total_sales, by_token, up to 100 history rows (tx hash, payer, amount, block, timestamp), source="real_blockchain", plus the wallet state and a market snapshot. Use it when you need provable revenue or settlement evidence; use get_market_stats for prices and get_bot_status for integration health. Paid via x402 (HTTP 402 challenge with the exact USDC amount and receiver on Base).
| 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, and it does so thoroughly: it declares 'Read-only operation — no side effects, no parameters,' describes the data source as 'real_blockchain,' discloses the 100-row limit, and explains the x402 HTTP 402 payment challenge with exact USDC amount and receiver.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: safety/no-params, return payload detail, usage routing, and payment mechanism. It is front-loaded with the most critical call-time facts and avoids filler.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fully self-sufficient: it covers the return shape, data provenance, limits, wallet/market context, cost, and sibling routing. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, which earns the baseline of 4. The description explicitly confirms 'no parameters,' consistent with the empty input schema and 100% schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the real on-chain payment history to this service's fee receiver on Base. It lists the exact fields returned and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what get_market_stats and get_bot_status are for.
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?
It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use it when you need provable revenue or settlement evidence.' It also names the alternatives and their purposes, so an agent can choose correctly without inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_bot_statusget_market_statsget_onchain_sales
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.