pulsenetwork

onchainpulse

OnchainPulse: Intelligence API for the onchain financial transition. Decodes legislation, tracks RWA tokenization, models sector scenarios, guides onchain integration. All endpoints require x402 payment (USDC on Ba

Coverage: Global

Endpoints: • legislation ($0.15): Translate crypto bills to plain English with sector impact • rwa ($0.15): Survey the real-world-asset market across asset classes • scenario ($0.20): Model sector impact scenarios with if/then analysis • transition ($0.10): Guide practical onchain onboarding by organization type • monitor ($0.10): Monitor institutional onchain activity, weekly briefs • compliance ($0.15): Map regulatory compliance duties by jurisdiction • tokenize ($0.15): Explain how to tokenize any asset type, step by step • glossary ($0.05): Decode any onchain finance or regulatory term plainly • snapshot ($0.10): Summarize the onchain transition in a weekly macro brief • memecoin ($0.015): Scan a Solana memecoin pre-trade, deterministic verdict • evmtoken ($0.015): Scan an EVM token pre-trade, multi-chain, deterministic • rwa-risk ($0.25): Assess issuer and redemption risk for a named RWA product • gold-check ($0.15): Compare tokenized gold products: PAXG vs XAUT • etf-flows ($0.15): Track US spot crypto ETF flows with per-issuer detail • clarity-watch ($0.10): Track CLARITY Act status, CFTC/SEC split, passage odds • vault-apy ($0.02): Live USDC yield panel on Base — onchain lending rates + realized Morpho vault APY, deterministic • asatoken ($0.015): Scan an Algorand ASA pre-trade, deterministic verdict • exit-depth ($0.02): Estimate sell-side depth of a v3 pool at 1-25% price impact • holder-map ($0.02): Map holder concentration with LP/burn/contract labeling • narrative-check ($0.15): Check a project's public claims against observed chain data • receipts ($0.35): One-call composite token due-diligence report • honeypot ($0.005): Check honeypot sellability flags, half a cent • liquidity ($0.005): Check token DEX liquidity and momentum, half a cent • rh-launches ($0.01): Live Uniswap-launchpad launch feed on Robinhood Chain, one cent • iso-receipt ($0.05): ISO 20022 camt.054-style receipt for an on-chain settlement (signed, verifiable)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Bill name or topic (e.g. 'GENIUS Act', 'stablecoin regulation', 'MiCA')
`tx`	No	Transaction hash of the settlement
`url`	No	Project's public website URL or domain
`lang`	No	Response language (ISO 639-1 code)
`mint`	No	SPL token mint address (base58)
`pool`	No	v3-compatible pool address to read directly (overrides token resolution)
`term`	No	Term to explain (e.g. 'atomic settlement', 'MiCA', 'CASP', 'yield bearing stablecoin', 'RWA')
`type`	No	Type of transition
`asset`	No	Which ETF complex to analyze
`chain`	No	EVM chain (default base)
`limit`	No	max launches to return, 1-50 (default 25); newest first
`scope`	No	scope parameter
`token`	No	ERC-20 token address — primary pool auto-resolved via DexScreener
`topic`	No	topic parameter
`vault`	No	Optional address of ANY ERC-4626 vault on Base to read alongside the standard panel.
`action`	No	Type of analysis
`period`	No	period parameter
`sector`	No	Sector to focus on, or 'all' for comprehensive coverage
`window`	No	Trailing window in days for realized ERC-4626 vault APY (share-price delta, annualized).
`address`	No	ERC-20 token contract address (0x + 40 hex)
`context`	No	Additional context about the user's situation
`product`	No	Product to analyze
`trigger`	No	The development to model (e.g. 'GENIUS Act passes', 'DTCC full tokenization launch', 'MiCA enforcement begins')
`use_case`	No	What the entity wants to do (e.g. 'issue a stablecoin', 'operate a crypto exchange', 'accept USDC payments')
`framework`	No	Specific framework to focus on (e.g. 'MiCA', 'GENIUS Act')
`timeframe`	No	timeframe parameter
`asset_type`	No	Asset type to analyze (e.g. 'real estate', 'equity', 'bond', 'private credit', 'art')
`asset_class`	No	Specific asset class focus (e.g. 'US Treasuries', 'real estate', 'private credit')
`perspective`	No	Account-holder address: its inflows become credits, outflows debits
`jurisdiction`	No	Jurisdiction to focus on

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that 'All endpoints require x402 payment (USDC on Base)' and lists costs per endpoint. It also notes 'Coverage: Global' and 'deterministic' for certain endpoints. However, it omits details on rate limits, error handling, response structure, or authentication beyond payment, leaving notable gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured as a short introduction followed by a bulleted list of 26 endpoints with prices and one-line summaries. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but is quite lengthy. While comprehensive, it lacks grouping or hierarchy, making it somewhat overwhelming. It is not concise, but every endpoint line conveys useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a high-complexity tool with 30 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides an endpoint catalog but does not explain how to construct API calls, which parameters are required for each endpoint, or what the response format looks like. There are no usage examples or error scenarios. Given the scale, the description is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The parameter descriptions in the schema are mostly minimal and some are tautological (e.g., 'scope parameter', 'period parameter', 'timeframe parameter'). The main description does not map parameters to endpoints or provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so it adds little value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Intelligence API for the onchain financial transition' and elaborates with specific capabilities like 'Decodes legislation, tracks RWA tokenization, models sector scenarios, guides onchain integration.' The extensive endpoint list further clarifies the scope, distinguishing it from siblings through its onchain focus. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like stablecoinpulse or cryptopulse.

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?

The description provides detailed per-endpoint summaries and pricing, which imply when each endpoint would be used. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools, nor any when-not-to-use instructions. The context for intended use is present but not explicitly stated.

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

All pulsenetwork tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a unique domain prefix (e.g., airdroppulse, alphapulse, arbipulse) making them mostly distinguishable at a glance. A few adjacent verticals like careerpulse vs talentpulse or marketpulse vs dealpulse have overlapping themes, but their descriptions clarify the distinct focus. The utility tools (catalog_search, discover, get_openapi_spec, x402_troubleshoot) are also clearly distinct in role. However, the sheer number of similar 'pulse' names could still cause misselection without reading descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant naming convention is `<domain>pulse` (e.g., climatepulse, cryptopulse, edupulse), which is highly consistent and predictable. Exceptions like catalog_search, discover, get_openapi_spec, x402_troubleshoot, and stateedge break the pattern, but these are few and serve obvious utility purposes. Overall, the convention is clear and easily learnable.

Tool Count2/5

With 80 tools, the server presents an extremely large and potentially overwhelming surface. While each tool represents a distinct intelligence vertical and navigation aids exist (catalog_search, discover, get_openapi_spec), the count far exceeds the typical 3-15 range for coherent agent use and even the 'heavy' 16-25 range. The burden of selecting the correct vertical from 80 options is significant, despite clear naming.

Completeness5/5

The server offers an exceptionally broad and deep coverage of domains, from finance and health to agriculture and gaming. Each vertical includes multiple endpoints that address core operations for its domain, such as search, analysis, comparisons, deterministic checks, and even action-oriented tools like letter generators and physical mail. The presence of free discovery and troubleshooting tools fills potential gaps, leaving no obvious dead ends in the overall tool surface.

onchainpulse

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources