Skip to main content
Glama

cryptoport-port

by com.thecryptoport

One coin's current row

coin
Read-only

FREE. One ticker's full current record — tier, channel, call, specifics, stance and previous stance, breadth, first/last seen — plus its catalysts and its anchor proof. The same facts are also free as static JSON at /coins/.json; this tool is the queryable form, not privileged content. Upstream briefs land on about 71% of days; board content is same-day roughly half the time and is never more than three days old. Not real-time. Every payload carries stale / stale_days / built_from_brief_date — read them. 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
tickerYesTicker as published, e.g. BTC
paymentNoOptional 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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses freshness bounds ('71% of days', 'never more than three days old'), guaranteed staleness fields in every payload, HTTP 400 refusals for unsupported inputs, and the commentary-not-advice nature. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but ordered: purpose, alternative representation, freshness, payload guarantees, rejection behavior. Every sentence contributes operational context; none is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields and the always-included staleness keys. It also covers freshness, limitations, and refusal behavior, giving an agent enough to invoke the tool and interpret results correctly.

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%: both ticker and payment are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a precise scope: 'One ticker's full current record' and enumerates the exact contents (tier, channel, call, stance, breadth, first/last seen, catalysts, anchor proof). It is unmistakably a single-ticker lookup distinct from the board-level and search siblings.

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?

It gives clear use context: queryable single-ticker form, static JSON alternative, not real-time, and rejection of portfolio/position/risk-profile inputs. It does not explicitly route to sibling tools like search or stance_history for other use cases, so it falls just short of full alternative 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
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct target: current board, historical snapshot, single coin detail, events, search, and stance history. The main overlap risk is between latest_board and board_snapshot, and between coin and stance_history, but descriptions clearly differentiate current vs. historical and record vs. arc.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and mostly noun-phrase style (board_snapshot, latest_board, stance_history), but the set mixes single nouns (coin, catalysts) with a verb (search) and uses inconsistent snake_case across only some names. The pattern is not chaotic, but lacks a uniform convention.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only board querying service: one for the full board, one for search, one for details, one for history, one for events, and one for historical snapshots. The count feels right for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The core read workflows are covered: get the current board, inspect a single coin, search, see the stance history, and list catalysts. The only notable gap is that board_snapshot is not yet functional, so true historical board snapshots are unavailable; however, stance_history partially fills the historical need.

Resources