agentdata-nl

crypto_feed_since

Free with a feed_handle from crypto_feed_subscribe: every published advice change since your cursor, across all covered coins — new signals, classification flips (previous_classification vs classification), status/score/entry-zone changes. Send back next_cursor each time; for the full advice behind a signal_id call get_crypto_signal (paid).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kinds`	No	Optional filter: new_signal, classification_changed, status_changed, score_changed, entry_zone_changed, economics_changed, execution_blockers_changed
`limit`	No	Max events per page (default 100, max 500)
`cursor`	No	Sequence you last saw; omit to continue from your subscription start, 0 for the backlog
`feed_handle`	Yes	Handle returned when you subscribed

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`count`	No	Number of events returned after your kinds filter.
`cursor`	No	The cursor this page started from.
`events`	No
`expired`	No	Present and true when the subscription lapsed; renew via POST /crypto/feed/renew with the same feed_handle.
`has_more`	No	True when the ledger page was full — poll again immediately rather than waiting.
`checked_at`	No	When we produced this answer (ISO 8601, UTC). The only ISO timestamp in the payload; every other timestamp is unix seconds.
`disclaimer`	No	Our product boundary, verbatim in every paid advice response: market intelligence only, no execution, no custody, no position sizing, and opportunity_score is a heuristic rather than a calibrated win probability.
`expires_at`	No
`latest_seq`	No	The newest ledger position right now.
`feed_handle`	No
`next_cursor`	No	Send this back on your next poll. Advances over filtered-out events too — a kinds filter never rewinds the cursor.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is 'free', implies a real-time feed ('every published advice change'), and explains pagination via cursor. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication details, or error conditions.

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 a single dense sentence conveying all key information. While effective, it could be slightly better structured (e.g., separated sentences for prerequisites, pagination, and alternatives). No unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (feed with filtering, pagination, and multiple change types), the description covers prerequisites, pagination mechanism, optional filters, and cross-reference to paid endpoint. Output schema exists, so return values are documented separately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of cursor ('omit to continue from your subscription start, 0 for the backlog') and the kinds filter list. This enables correct invocation.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves every published advice change since a cursor from a prior subscription, covering all coins. It lists specific event types (new signals, classification flips, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from subscription (crypto_feed_subscribe) and single-signal retrieval (get_crypto_signal).

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 instructs to send back next_cursor each time, and directs to get_crypto_signal for full advice behind a signal_id. It implicitly states prerequisites (must have subscribed) and provides clear context for usage.

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

All agentdata-nl 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and domain: country-specific company checks (check_ch_company, check_fr_company, etc.), insolvency checks, crypto signals, x402 network tools, etc. Descriptions are detailed and make boundaries clear, with no two tools appearing to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow very consistent patterns: 'check_<country>_<entity>' for registers, 'crypto_*' for crypto intelligence, 'x402_*' for x402 network functions, 'screen_*' for screening, and a few free-form names like 'verify_eu_vat' and 'lookup_lei' that still fit the verb_noun style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is high but justified by the broad scope: the server aggregates many country-specific checks, insolvency registers, crypto tools, x402 monitoring, and auxiliary functions (like phone number buying, LEI lookup). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not excessive given the coverage. A slight reduction could be possible by merging some country checks, but overall it's reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major European company registers (CH, UK, FR, NL, NO, PL, CZ, FI), insolvency checks (NL, FR), sanctions screening, VAT validation, crypto market intelligence, and x402 network tools. It acknowledges gaps (e.g., no German check) and provides fallback tools like 'screen_eu_supplier' and 'file_agent_want'. Minor missing pieces (e.g., Italian company check) keep it from a perfect 5.

Resources

Need Help?