True Value Rankings

Get TVR Score

get_tvr_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free. Returns the TVR Score, rank, valuation category (Undervalued, Fair Value or Overvalued) and all 8 metric scores with their weights for a cryptocurrency, with the date its scores last changed. The exact TVR Estimated Value, Fair Value Gap and the reasons behind the category are in get_fair_value_verdict ($0.02). Accepts a ticker (BTC) or a name (Bitcoin). TVR evaluates fundamental strength using Sound Value principles. Data from True Value Rankings (truevaluerankings.com). Rate limit: 100 requests per 15 minutes per IP.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "coin": "<coin>"
    },
    "name": "get_tvr_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coin`	Yes	Cryptocurrency ticker or name (e.g., BTC, Bitcoin, ETH, LTC, XMR, SOL, ADA, AVAX, DOT, POL, LINK)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coin`	No	Coin name
`rank`	No	Rank among evaluated coins, 1 is best
`as_of`	No	When the prices behind this answer were taken (prices_as_of) and the day the coin's eight metric scores last changed (scores_last_changed)
`error`	No	false on a normal answer, or an error message
`status`	No	Present when the request could not be answered as asked, for example not_available
`symbol`	No	Ticker
`context`	No	Standing context about TVR and how to read its outputs
`summary`	No	Plain-language summary of the answer
`trimmed`	No	Present when this free answer leaves out the exact figures and written reasons, with where to find them
`category`	No	TVR coin category
`requested`	No	What was asked for, when it could not be resolved
`tvr_score`	No	TVR Score, 0 to 100
`valuation`	No	Undervalued, Fair Value or Overvalued
`disclaimer`	No	Model-derived assessment, not investment advice
`learn_more`	No	Links for more detail
`attribution`	No	Required attribution text
`paid_option`	No	Where relevant: the paid TVR capability that goes further than this free answer, with its price, how to pay, the licence and an example call. Nothing is charged unless the client pays.
`rank_out_of`	No	Number of coins evaluated
`data_sources`	No	Where the numbers come from
`paid_verdict`	No	The paid fair value verdict for a coin: the exact Fair Value Gap and TVR Estimated Value with the main reasons and caveats, its price and how to call it. Nothing is charged unless the client pays.
`metric_scores`	No	All 8 metric scores with their weights
`fair_value_gap`	No	Gap between TVR Estimated Value and market price, formatted as a percentage
`valuation_rule`	No	The published valuation rule: Undervalued at least 4% above the market price, Overvalued more than 15% below it, Fair Value between
`weakest_metric`	No
`strongest_metric`	No
`tvr_estimated_value`	No	TVR Estimated Value, formatted in USD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / as_of

Added value: +{
+  "description": "When the prices behind this answer were taken (prices_as_of) and the day the coin's eight metric scores last changed (scores_last_changed)"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / paid_verdict

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The paid fair value verdict for a coin: the exact Fair Value Gap and TVR Estimated Value with the main reasons and caveats, its price and how to call it. Nothing is charged unless the client pays."
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / trimmed

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present when this free answer leaves out the exact figures and written reasons, with where to find them"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / valuation_rule

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The published valuation rule: Undervalued at least 4% above the market price, Overvalued more than 15% below it, Fair Value between",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 31, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / paid_option

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where relevant: the paid TVR capability that goes further than this free answer, with its price, how to pay, the licence and an example call. Nothing is charged unless the client pays."
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "attribution": {
+      "description": "Required attribution text",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "category": {
+      "description": "TVR coin category",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "coin": {
+      "description": "Coin name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "context": {
+      "description": "Standing context about TVR and how to read its outputs"
+    },
+    "data_sources": {
+      "description": "Where the numbers come from"
+    },
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "description": "Model-derived assessment, not investment advice",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "false on a normal answer, or an error message"
+    },
+    "fair_value_gap": {
+      "description": "Gap between TVR Estimated Value and market price, formatted as a percentage",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "learn_more": {
+      "description": "Links for more detail"
+    },
+    "metric_scores": {
+      "description": "All 8 metric scores with their weights"
+    },
+    "rank": {
+      "description": "Rank among evaluated coins, 1 is best",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "rank_out_of": {
+      "description": "Number of coins evaluated",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "requested": {
+      "description": "What was asked for, when it could not be resolved",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Present when the request could not be answered as asked, for example not_available",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "strongest_metric": {},
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "Plain-language summary of the answer",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "symbol": {
+      "description": "Ticker",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tvr_estimated_value": {
+      "description": "TVR Estimated Value, formatted in USD",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tvr_score": {
+      "description": "TVR Score, 0 to 100",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "valuation": {
+      "description": "Undervalued, Fair Value or Overvalued",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "weakest_metric": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / coin / description

Previous value: -"Cryptocurrency ticker symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, LTC, XMR, SOL, ADA, AVAX, DOT, POL, LINK)"New value: +"Cryptocurrency ticker or name (e.g., BTC, Bitcoin, ETH, LTC, XMR, SOL, ADA, AVAX, DOT, POL, LINK)"

First observedMar 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not required to restate it. It instead contributes context the annotations cannot: the call is free, data originates from truevaluerankings.com, and there is a concrete rate limit of 100 requests per 15 minutes per IP. What is missing is any statement about failure behavior, e.g. what happens for an unrecognized ticker.

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 front-loaded with the cost marker and the return payload, then the sibling routing, then input flexibility and provenance. Every sentence is functional, though the trailing 'TVR evaluates fundamental strength using Sound Value principles' plus the domain callout could be merged or dropped without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not spell out return values and correctly spends its words on cost, rate limits, data provenance, accepted input forms, and the alternative for deeper data. For a single-parameter read-only lookup this is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly on the first attempt.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'coin' parameter is already documented with ticker and name examples (BTC, Bitcoin, ETH...). The description's line 'Accepts a ticker (BTC) or a name (Bitcoin)' restates that same flexibility rather than adding new meaning such as case sensitivity, partial-name matching, or handling of ambiguous symbols. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (TVR Score) and enumerates exactly what is returned: rank, valuation category, all 8 metric scores with weights, and the date scores last changed. It explicitly delimits itself against a named sibling, get_fair_value_verdict, which owns the estimated value and Fair Value Gap. An agent can tell this tool apart from compare_coins or get_full_breakdown without opening any schema.

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 clearly frames a summary-score request as this tool's job and routes the agent to get_fair_value_verdict when the exact Estimated Value, Fair Value Gap, or category reasoning is needed, including the price of that call. What it does not do is mention the other plausible alternatives present among siblings, such as get_full_breakdown, get_historical_scores, or get_tvr_estimated_value, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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

All True Value Rankings tools Inspect

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.