Skip to main content
Glama

cryptoport-port

by com.thecryptoport
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Historical daily board (not yet available)

board_snapshot
Read-only

FREE. The whole board as it stood on a past date, with that day's anchor proof. NOT YET AVAILABLE: only the current board is emitted, and no dated snapshot series has been anchored yet. The tool answers with available:false and is NOT charged while that is true. Commentary on public statements, not advice. This tool does not accept portfolio, position or risk-profile inputs and will refuse them with HTTP 400.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesISO date, e.g. 2026-08-20
paymentNoOptional x402 payment payload: the value you would send in the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header (base64 JSON, x402 v2). Call without it first: the tool answers with the 402 terms and carries the verbatim PAYMENT-REQUIRED header value in `x402` — hand that to an x402 client to build the payload, which settles testnet USDC on Base Sepolia — then call again with this field. The receipt (tx_hash, payer, network) comes back in `settlement`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / payment / description
      Previous value: -"Optional x402 payment payload (the value you would put in the X-PAYMENT header, base64). Call without it first: the tool answers with the machine-readable 402 terms, you settle testnet USDC on Base Sepolia, then call again with this field."New value: +"Optional x402 payment payload: the value you would send in the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header (base64 JSON, x402 v2). Call without it first: the tool answers with the 402 terms and carries the verbatim PAYMENT-REQUIRED header value in `x402` — hand that to an x402 client to build the payload, which settles testnet USDC on Base Sepolia — then call again with this field. The receipt (tx_hash, payer, network) comes back in `settlement`."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It transparently discloses that it returns available:false when not yet available, is not charged in that state, and refuses portfolio/position/risk-profile inputs with HTTP 400. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, revealing specific behavioral edge cases.

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 somewhat lengthy due to disclaimers and repetitive phrases (e.g., 'NOT YET AVAILABLE' and 'not charged'), but it is logically structured and each sentence contributes necessary information about behavior and constraints.

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 description thoroughly covers the not-available behavior and input refusals, but lacks details about the successful response structure (e.g., the board data and anchor proof format) when the tool becomes available. This leaves some context incomplete.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (date and payment). The tool description adds a semantic constraint by stating it refuses certain input types, but does not elaborate further on the existing parameters, keeping the added value modest.

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 the whole board as it stood on a past date with that day's anchor proof, and explicitly notes it is not yet available, returning available:false. This gives a precise and complete purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool over siblings like latest_board. It only implies historical use by saying 'past date' and notes the current board is not available, but lacks direct when/when-not guidance.

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

All cryptoport-port toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources