openfang-rail

Crypto ticker

crypto_ticker

Read-onlyIdempotent

Current spot price (USD) for a symbol via the public CoinGecko API; common tickers (btc, eth, …) are mapped to CoinGecko ids automatically. Cached 60s server-side; preflighted so you never pay during an API outage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	Ticker symbol (btc, eth, sol, …) or a CoinGecko asset id (bitcoin, ethereum, …).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`scope`	No
`valid`	Yes
`cached`	No
`reason`	No
`symbol`	Yes
`currency`	No
`price_usd`	No
`retryable`	No
`fetched_at`	No
`coingecko_id`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the public API source, automatic ticker-to-id mapping, 60-second server-side caching, and preflight protection against paying during an API outage. This adds meaningful operational context without contradicting 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?

Two tight sentences convey the core behavior, scope, and key operational details with no redundancy. The most important information—what the tool returns—is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, for which inputs, from which source, with caching and outage protection. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'symbol' parameter. The description adds value by explaining that common tickers are automatically mapped to CoinGecko ids, reducing the user's burden to know CoinGecko-specific asset identifiers.

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 a specific verb ('Current spot price') and resource (a symbol via the public CoinGecko API), with the currency explicitly USD. This also distinguishes it from the sibling validation and balance tools, which serve entirely different purposes.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to fetch the current spot price in USD for a supported crypto symbol. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to offer similar price functionality.

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

All openfang-rail tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct identifier type or data source: every checksum validation is for a specific standard (IBAN, LEI, VAT, etc.), and the on-chain and rental tools are clearly separate domains. There is no ambiguity between tools; even similar-sounding checks like 'luhn_check' and 'ean13_check' are distinct algorithms with explicit descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most validation tools follow a 'X_check' pattern (iban_check, swift_bic_check, ein_format_check), but others deviate: 'company_number_format' uses a noun_noun structure, 'block_info' is noun_noun, and 'batch_validate' and 'context_distill' use verbs. While the pattern is not uniform, the names are readable and the convention is understandable, just not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 28 tools, this server exceeds the typical 3-15 well-scoped range and even the 16-25 heavy range. The server covers multiple unrelated domains (identifier validation, blockchain queries, rental fraud, text processing), which inflates the count. While each tool is individually justified, the overall surface feels overly broad for a single MCP server.

Completeness4/5

For each sub-domain, coverage is strong: identifier validation includes a wide range of international standards, on-chain queries cover balances, activity, and settlement history, and rental tools provide risk, verdict, and deposit guard. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no country-specific tax IDs beyond what's listed, no transaction history for arbitrary tokens), but the visible coverage is comprehensive for the stated purposes.

Resources

Need Help?