Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

crypto_feed_subscribe

Subscribe for 30 days to the change feed behind /crypto/scan: one cursor over the upstream advice ledger, all coins at once. Returns a handle and a cursor; polling is then free and unlimited: /crypto/feed/since returns every published change since your cursor — new signals, classification flips, status changes (PUBLISHED/STALE/INVALIDATED), score and entry-zone changes. Be first to know when the market state flips; the full advice per signal stays a separate paid call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pollNoReady-to-send request for crypto_feed_since.
renewNoReady-to-send request body for POST /crypto/feed/renew ($2.00, adds 30 days on top).
cursorNoThe current ledger position — start polling from here; history is not replayed as 'new'. Pass cursor 0 once if you want the backlog.
coverageNoThe coins the upstream advice system currently tracks; the list rotates with its universe.
checked_atNoWhen we produced this answer (ISO 8601, UTC). The only ISO timestamp in the payload; every other timestamp is unix seconds.
disclaimerNoOur 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_atNoWhen the subscription lapses; polls then return expired=true until you renew.
event_kindsNoAll kinds you can filter on when polling.
feed_handleNoSubscription handle; required on every poll and renewal. Not recoverable if lost.
methodologyNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the subscription duration (30 days), the returned handle and cursor, that polling is free and unlimited, and details the types of changes published (new signals, classification flips, status changes, score/entry-zone changes). It also notes that full advice is a separate paid call. No contradictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key action and duration. It then explains return values and subsequent usage. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value. It is concise enough for an agent to quickly understand core functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers subscription behavior, duration, return type, and subsequent polling. It is complete for a subscription tool, though a brief note on cancellation or renewal would improve completeness. Overall, sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the subscription. Since there are no parameters, the description replaces parameter documentation entirely.

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 action (subscribe), the resource (change feed behind /crypto/scan), and duration (30 days). It specifies the scope (all coins) and differentiates from related tools like crypto_feed_since by indicating that polling is separate. This provides a specific verb-resource pair with clear distinction from siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool: to get notified of changes in the crypto scan feed and 'be first to know when the market state flips'. It also mentions that after subscribing, polling via /crypto/feed/since is available and free. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context from sibling names and the description itself gives sufficient guidance.

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

All agentdata-nl 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

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