Skip to main content
Glama

pulsenetwork

by com.theaslangroupllc.pulse

stablecoinpulse

StablecoinPulse: Real-time stablecoin market intelligence — GENIUS Act compliance reads, yield comparison, peg-stability monitoring, cross-chain flow tracking, payment-rail comparison, reserve-attestation freshness, and global regulatory status. All endpoints require x402 payment (USDC on Base mainnet) via the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header.

Coverage: Global

Endpoints: • issuer-check ($0.25): GENIUS Act issuer compliance check • yield-compare ($0.25): Stablecoin yield comparison • depeg-watch ($0.15): Stablecoin peg-deviation watch • rails-compare ($0.25): Stablecoin payment-rail comparison • reserve-check ($0.20): Reserve-attestation freshness check • reg-watch ($0.15): Global stablecoin regulatory watch • depeg-tick ($0.01): Stablecoin peg tick — all majors, one call

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoResponse language, e.g. en, es, fr, de, ja, zh, ko, pt, ar. Default en.
railsNoComma-separated subset of rail ids, e.g. plasma,arc,tron. Default: all 7 registered rails.
actionYesWhich endpoint to call. Options: issuer-check | yield-compare | depeg-watch | rails-compare | reserve-check | reg-watch | depeg-tick
issuerNoIssuer name, e.g. Circle, Tether, Paxos, Ripple. One of issuer or stablecoin is required.
symbolNoStablecoin ticker, e.g. USDT, USDC, DAI, USDE, USD1.
stablecoinNoStablecoin ticker, e.g. USDT, USDC, PYUSD. One of issuer or stablecoin is required.
jurisdictionNoJurisdiction code or name, e.g. US, EU, UK, JP, SG, HK, AE. Any jurisdiction accepted.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the payment requirement (USDC on Base mainnet), per-endpoint costs, and global coverage. However, it does not describe output format, error handling, rate limits, or what the agent can expect in responses, which is a notable gap for a data-intelligence 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?

The description is well-structured: a high-level summary, payment requirement, coverage line, and a bulleted endpoint list. It is longer than average but every item in the list corresponds directly to an action enum value, so there is no wasteful content. A minor deduction for not being as compact as possible.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and behavior. It thoroughly covers the endpoint catalog and payment/coverage, but omits any information about what data each endpoint returns, response formats, or failure modes. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke and parse results confidently.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema by explaining each action enum value in the endpoint list (e.g., 'depeg-watch' = 'Stablecoin peg-deviation watch') and associating costs. This helps the agent select the correct action parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the tool provides 'Real-time stablecoin market intelligence' and enumerates specific capabilities: GENIUS Act compliance, yield comparison, peg-stability, cross-chain flows, payment rails, reserve attestations, and regulatory status. This distinguishes it from sibling pulse tools by domain (stablecoins) and by listing discrete functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear operational context for use, including that all endpoints require x402 payment via the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, and lists each endpoint with its cost. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, but the domain-specific opening implies usage context.

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

All pulsenetwork toolsInspect
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.

Resources