Skip to main content
Glama

cryptoport-port

by com.thecryptoport
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it states the tool is 'FREE', gives a legal disclaimer ('not advice'), explains that invalid inputs are refused with HTTP 400, and alerts users to staleness fields in every payload. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, though the payment parameter in the schema introduces minor ambiguity about the 'FREE' claim.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose, combining multiple disclaimers, data-quality notes, and input restrictions into a long, run-on text. Phrases like 'FREE' and 'same facts are also free' are redundant, and the overall structure could be condensed into more focused sentences.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers output fields, data freshness, legal disclaimer, and input restrictions, giving a fairly complete picture of what the tool returns and how it behaves. The payment flow is not mentioned, but it is fully explained in the input schema, so it does not leave a critical gap for the agent.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (ticker and payment), so the description adds little extra parameter detail. The description does note that portfolio, position, and risk-profile inputs are not accepted, which is a useful boundary, but otherwise relies on the schema's complete coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns one ticker's full current record, enumerating specific fields like tier, channel, call, and stance. It also distinguishes the tool from the static JSON alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool (queryable form vs. static JSON), when not to use it (portfolio/position inputs are refused), and notes data freshness limitations (71% of days, not real-time). While it does not directly name sibling tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to choose appropriately.

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