Vi Assistant by Vultax
Server Details
Vi market evidence, hypothetical price scenarios and published Vultax research.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- ChristopherZYX/vultax-research-plugin
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- vultax-research
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: research search, article retrieval, dataset retrieval, market inspection, and scenario arithmetic. Any apparent overlap between research tools is resolved by search vs. article vs. dataset scope.
All tool names use snake_case with a clear verb_noun pattern, such as search_research, get_research_article, inspect_prediction_market, and calculate_probability_scenario. The convention is predictable across the set.
Five tools are well-scoped for a research-and-prediction-market assistant. The set covers discovery, retrieval, inspection, and calculation without redundant or filler endpoints.
The set covers the core research lifecycle and exact-link market inspection, but lacks dedicated prediction-market search or multi-market/batch inspection. These are minor gaps that an agent can mostly work around using exact links and the existing search tool.
Available Tools
5 toolscalculate_probability_scenarioVi probability scenarioARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Calculate the hypothetical dollar impact of user-selected outcome prices for a fixed number of contracts, including explicit entry and exit dollar costs. Pure arithmetic: not a forecast, live quote, strategy backtest, order or paper position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contracts | Yes | ||
| entryPrice | Yes | ||
| exitCostUsd | No | ||
| entryCostUsd | No | ||
| scenarioPrices | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds real behavioral context by emphasizing the tool is pure arithmetic and not connected to live market data, which no annotation conveys. It doesn't mention output shape, but that's minor for a calculator.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the scope-restricting disclaimer. Tight and waste-free, though the 'not a...' list is slightly listy and could be trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 0% param coverage across 5 params, the description leaves gaps an agent would want filled: return structure (per-scenario P&L?), role of entryCostUsd/exitCostUsd, and the 12-item array limit. The arithmetic-only framing is a strong addition, but overall it is adequate rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and there are 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does communicate the semantic of contracts+entryPrice+scenarioPrices as 'fixed number of contracts' and 'user-selected outcome prices', and mentions entry/exit dollar costs. But it never explains bounds (prices 0-1), the up-to-12 scenarioPrices array, or units/precision, leaving meaningful ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: calculate the dollar impact of user-selected outcome prices over a fixed contract count with explicit entry/exit costs. It also sharply delimits itself from siblings (none of which compute anything) via the 'pure arithmetic: not a forecast, live quote, strategy backtest, order or paper position' clause.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The negative framing ('not a forecast, live quote, strategy backtest, order or paper position') implicitly tells the agent when NOT to use it, which is genuinely useful given siblings like inspect_prediction_market. But it never states when TO use it or names an alternative for the scenarios it excludes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_research_articleARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Read a complete published Vultax study and its source metadata. This is historical research, not a current market snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations fully cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the retrieved content is immutable historical research rather than live data. It still says nothing about behavior on a missing slug or the volume of returned content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences that front-load what is retrieved, followed immediately by the disambiguating temporal caveat. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema the description must convey the return shape, and 'complete study and its source metadata' does so adequately for a single-item fetch tool. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for an invalid slug and whether the study body is paginated or truncated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'slug' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The pattern '^[a-z0-9-]+$' and maxLength constrain the value but the description never explains where a slug comes from or how to obtain one, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb (Read) and resource (a complete published Vultax study plus its source metadata), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly separates itself from live-market tools via the 'not a current market snapshot' line, but never names a sibling like inspect_prediction_market or get_research_dataset directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'This is historical research, not a current market snapshot' implies the correct context of use and hints that live-market tools exist for the other case, but no alternative is named and no prerequisite or exclusion is stated explicitly. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_research_datasetBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve published study datasets and CSV/JSON links with units, observation periods and limitations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| dataset | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the resource contains limitations and observation periods, which is useful downstream context. It doesn't disclose pagination, error behavior for an unknown slug, or the dataset parameter's effect, so it does only modest value-add beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, then the payload. No waste; a little terse for a two-parameter lookup, but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description's brief list of return contents (links, units, periods, limitations) is a helpful substitute. But with 0% parameter docs and no usage context, the agent lacks enough to know how to pick correct slug/dataset values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% on 2 params. The description never explains 'slug' (study identifier, lowercased pattern) or 'dataset' (which dataset within a study, optional). The agent must infer the relationship between the two params from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('published study datasets') with the payload ('CSV/JSON links with units, observation periods and limitations'). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_research_article, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer it belongs to a research-data flow versus get_research_article or search_research on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
inspect_prediction_marketVi market briefARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Inspect an exact Polymarket link: resolve the market, read resolution rules, outcome prices, spread, volume, liquidity and a bounded recent-trade sample. Returns source timestamps and an exact Vultax workspace link. Multi-market events require selection. Data may be delayed. No account or trading access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | Yes | An exact Polymarket event/market URL or market slug. Never send private account links. | |
| marketSlug | No | Select one exact returned market when an event has several outcomes. | |
| includeTrades | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: output includes source timestamps, data may be delayed, results are bounded to a recent-trade sample, and there is no account/trading access. Only the freshness/latency detail is qualitative rather than quantified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the data returned, then the constraints. Every clause carries information an agent needs (link requirement, selection rule, delay caveat, access limits); nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does the work of summarizing the return surface (prices, spread, volume, liquidity, trade sample, timestamps, workspace link), and it clarifies access limits for a read-only open-world tool. The only omission is any mention of the includeTrades toggle, a minor gap for a low-complexity 3-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, so the market and marketSlug parameters are already documented in the schema; the description reinforces the selection semantics for multi-outcome events, which maps to marketSlug. It says nothing about includeTrades, the one parameter with no schema description, leaving that gap unfilled.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (an exact Polymarket link) and then enumerates exactly what is read: resolution rules, outcome prices, spread, volume, liquidity, bounded trade sample. An agent can distinguish this from the research-oriented siblings (search_research, get_research_article) 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Establishes the entry condition clearly: an exact Polymarket link/slug, with 'Multi-market events require selection' telling the agent what to do when a link resolves to several outcomes. It also sets boundaries ('No account or trading access'). It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_researchBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search Vultax published crypto and prediction-market studies; returns citation URLs and stable article IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the return payload (citation URLs, stable article IDs), but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or result ordering.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that states both the resource searched and the return shape. Nothing is padded or redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by naming return fields. However, with zero schema description coverage on three parameters and no pagination guidance for limit/offset, an agent still lacks enough to call the tool precisely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no meaning for query, limit, or offset beyond the word 'search'. The bounds and defaults exist only in the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the complete absence of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource (search published Vultax crypto/prediction-market studies) and what it returns (citation URLs and stable article IDs). It is distinguishable from get_research_article by being a search rather than a fetch-by-ID, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the fact that it returns 'stable article IDs' hints that search is the discovery step before get_research_article, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing guidance. An agent can infer the workflow but must do the work itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
5 tool updates
- Added
calculate_probability_scenario - Changed
get_research_article3 fields changed- added
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +false - removed
Input schema / properties / slug / minLengthRemoved value: -1 - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#", - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "author": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "id": { - "type": "string" - }, - "name": { - "type": "string" - }, - "url": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "id", - "name", - "url" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "category": { - "type": "string" - }, - "datasets": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "articleUrl": { - "type": "string" - }, - "columns": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "name": { - "type": "string" - }, - "unit": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - } - }, - "required": [ - "name", - "unit" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "description": { - "type": "string" - }, - "downloads": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "csv": { - "type": "string" - }, - "json": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "json", - "csv" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "id": { - "type": "string" - }, - "isLive": { - "const": false, - "type": "boolean" - }, - "kind": { - "enum": [ - "published-table", - "published-chart" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - "limitations": { - "type": "string" - }, - "measurement": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "kind": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "enum": [ - "observed", - "illustrative", - "reference" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - }, - "methodology": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "population": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "temporalCoverage": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - } - }, - "required": [ - "kind", - "temporalCoverage", - "population", - "methodology" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "measurementContext": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "modifiedAt": { - "type": "string" - }, - "publishedAt": { - "type": "string" - }, - "rows": { - "items": { - "items": { - "type": [ - "string", - "number" - ] - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "sectionUrl": { - "type": "string" - }, - "sources": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "label": { - "type": "string" - }, - "note": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "url": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "label", - "url", - "note" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "title": { - "type": "string" - }, - "version": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "id", - "title", - "kind", - "description", - "articleUrl", - "sectionUrl", - "publishedAt", - "modifiedAt", - "version", - "isLive", - "columns", - "rows", - "measurementContext", - "measurement", - "limitations", - "sources", - "downloads" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "description": { - "type": "string" - }, - "id": { - "type": "string" - }, - "keywords": { - "items": { - "type": "string" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "limitations": { - "type": "string" - }, - "liveContextUrl": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "markdown": { - "type": "string" - }, - "markdownUrl": { - "type": "string" - }, - "modifiedAt": { - "type": "string" - }, - "publishedAt": { - "type": "string" - }, - "publisher": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "id": { - "type": "string" - }, - "name": { - "type": "string" - }, - "url": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "id", - "name", - "url" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "questions": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "answer": { - "type": "string" - }, - "question": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "question", - "answer" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "revisions": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "date": { - "type": "string" - }, - "text": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "date", - "text" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "schemaVersion": { - "type": "string" - }, - "sections": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "bullets": { - "items": { - "type": "string" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "heading": { - "type": "string" - }, - "id": { - "type": "string" - }, - "paragraphs": { - "items": { - "type": "string" - }, - "type": "array" - } - }, - "required": [ - "id", - "heading", - "paragraphs", - "bullets" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "signals": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "label": { - "type": "string" - }, - "note": { - "type": "string" - }, - "value": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "label", - "value" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "sources": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "label": { - "type": "string" - }, - "note": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "url": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "label", - "url", - "note" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "summary": { - "type": "string" - }, - "title": { - "type": "string" - }, - "url": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "id", - "title", - "description", - "url", - "markdownUrl", - "category", - "publishedAt", - "modifiedAt", - "schemaVersion", - "markdown", - "summary", - "keywords", - "author", - "publisher", - "signals", - "sections", - "sources", - "datasets", - "questions", - "revisions", - "limitations", - "liveContextUrl" - ], - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
- Changed
get_research_dataset4 fields changed- added
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +false - changed
Input schema / properties / dataset / patternPrevious value: -"^[a-z0-9-]+$"New value: +"^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+$" - removed
Input schema / properties / slug / minLengthRemoved value: -1 - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#", - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "articleUrl": { - "type": "string" - }, - "datasets": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "articleUrl": { - "type": "string" - }, - "columns": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "name": { - "type": "string" - }, - "unit": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - } - }, - "required": [ - "name", - "unit" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "description": { - "type": "string" - }, - "downloads": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "csv": { - "type": "string" - }, - "json": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "json", - "csv" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "id": { - "type": "string" - }, - "isLive": { - "const": false, - "type": "boolean" - }, - "kind": { - "enum": [ - "published-table", - "published-chart" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - "limitations": { - "type": "string" - }, - "measurement": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "kind": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "enum": [ - "observed", - "illustrative", - "reference" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - }, - "methodology": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "population": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "temporalCoverage": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - } - }, - "required": [ - "kind", - "temporalCoverage", - "population", - "methodology" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "measurementContext": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "modifiedAt": { - "type": "string" - }, - "publishedAt": { - "type": "string" - }, - "rows": { - "items": { - "items": { - "type": [ - "string", - "number" - ] - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "sectionUrl": { - "type": "string" - }, - "sources": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "label": { - "type": "string" - }, - "note": { - "type": [ - "string", - "null" - ] - }, - "url": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "label", - "url", - "note" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "title": { - "type": "string" - }, - "version": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "id", - "title", - "kind", - "description", - "articleUrl", - "sectionUrl", - "publishedAt", - "modifiedAt", - "version", - "isLive", - "columns", - "rows", - "measurementContext", - "measurement", - "limitations", - "sources", - "downloads" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - } - }, - "required": [ - "articleUrl", - "datasets" - ], - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
- Added
inspect_prediction_market - Changed
search_research2 fields changed- added
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +false - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#", - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "nextOffset": { - "type": [ - "number", - "null" - ] - }, - "query": { - "type": "string" - }, - "results": { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": false, - "properties": { - "category": { - "type": "string" - }, - "description": { - "type": "string" - }, - "id": { - "type": "string" - }, - "markdownUrl": { - "type": "string" - }, - "modifiedAt": { - "type": "string" - }, - "publishedAt": { - "type": "string" - }, - "title": { - "type": "string" - }, - "url": { - "type": "string" - } - }, - "required": [ - "id", - "title", - "description", - "url", - "markdownUrl", - "category", - "publishedAt", - "modifiedAt" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - "type": "array" - }, - "total": { - "type": "number" - } - }, - "required": [ - "query", - "total", - "results", - "nextOffset" - ], - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
3 tool updates
- First observed
get_research_article - First observed
get_research_dataset - First observed
search_research
Related MCP Connectors
Cryptocurrency fundamentals research and education. Model-derived scores and valuation estimates.
Historical crypto investment and retirement calculators with cited market data.
Live spot prices for verified human judgment, sign-off and notarisation.
Read-only Solana and crypto reserve-recovery scans, pricing, chain facts, and methodology.
Related MCP Servers
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA second opinion on any ticker, before you act. The case for it, the case against it, and the price that proves it wrong.17MIT- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenancePre-computed financial market intelligence for AI agents. Stocks, crypto, and ETFs.91675MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to access ranked economic opportunities and AI-voice pricing intelligence, including falsifiable experiment design, monetization paths, success/kill criteria, and margin calculations grounded in public evidence.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables evaluation of digital marketplaces by classifying demand signals, scoring commercial viability, sanity-checking claims, and comparing candidate channels.-
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.