Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

crypto_track_record

Measured track record of the strategies behind /crypto/verdict, resold from the upstream signal system. Give a window in days (default 30, clamped 1..365); returns per strategy the number of trades, wins, win rate and average net return over that window, with the measurement start. A factual measurement over a short window (wide error bars), not investment advice. Cheap showcase for the paid verdict endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoMeasurement window in days (default 30, clamped 1..365)

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is a factual measurement with wide error bars and not investment advice, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any destructive behavior.

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 concisely structured: it first states the purpose, then parameter guidance, then the return fields, and finally context. Every sentence is informative and adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return fields (trades, wins, win rate, average net return) and provides context (measurement start, window clamping, not advice). It is complete for the tool's low complexity, though it could mention error handling or data freshness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The only parameter 'days' has full schema description coverage (100%). The description repeats the default and clamping from the schema, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what is already in the input schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides a measured track record of strategies behind /crypto/verdict, specifying verb (track record) and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'crypto_verdict' by noting it's a cheap showcase for that paid endpoint, though not explicitly listing alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives context on when to use: as a cheap showcase before paying for the verdict. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond implying the main verdict is paid.

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