Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Einstein — Crypto & Market Intelligence

by io.emc2ai

Launchpad Radar

get_launchpad_radar
Read-onlyIdempotent

Tokens that just migrated off a bonding curve onto a DEX, with holder-distribution forensics: what share the dev, snipers, insiders and bundler wallets hold, plus wash-trading tags. Covers Pump.fun, Bonk, Raydium, Meteora, Four.meme, Flap and others through one feed. Use when asked about new launches, fresh memecoins, or whether a launch is bundled.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows to return (1-15).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about the data (holder forensics, wash-trading tags) without contradicting annotations. It could be slightly more explicit about being a read-only feed, but annotations cover that.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose, coverage, and usage triggers. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, which platforms it covers, and when to use it. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 only parameter, 'limit', has a clear schema description ('Rows to return (1-15)') which fully defines its semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the explicit range and purpose justify a slightly higher score.

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's function: it provides tokens that migrated off a bonding curve onto a DEX, along with holder-distribution forensics and wash-trading tags. This is distinct from sibling tools like scan_launchpads or get_social_hype, making its purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when asked about new launches, fresh memecoins, or whether a launch is bundled.' It also mentions the platforms covered (Pump.fun, Bonk, Raydium, etc.), providing clear context for selection among alternatives.

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

All Agent Einstein — Crypto & Market Intelligence 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 40 tools, many share overlapping domains: get_smart_money_flow vs get_smart_money_inflow, scan_launchpads vs get_launchpad_radar, track_whales vs get_hyperliquid_whales, and check_token_safety vs analyze_token_security. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always clear, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency2/5

The tool names employ a wide variety of verbs (get_, analyze_, scan_, track_, find_, generate_, recommend_, run_, list_, ask_, assess_, detect_) with no consistent pattern. While all use snake_case, the inconsistent verb choices and occasional deviations like forecast_chart prevent predictability.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is well above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad 'crypto intelligence' purpose justifies some breadth, the sheer number makes the surface unwieldy and suggests a lack of focused scoping.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of crypto intelligence domains: market analysis, forecasting, whale tracking, yield/arbitrage, security checks, prediction markets, backtesting, and even content generation. Missing operations are minor (e.g., no direct portfolio management), but core analysis and data retrieval workflows are well represented.

Resources