Skip to main content
Glama

get_stablecoin_metrics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Global stablecoin metrics -- total supply, per-chain breakdown and the top stablecoins by market cap. Use it when the user asks about stablecoin supply, USDC or USDT dominance, or overall market liquidity.

[Access: pay 0.005 USDC via x402 (PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header) OR authenticate with an API key. An x402-capable client will auto-pay; API-key clients pay nothing per call.]

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_stablecoin_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds crucial operational context the annotations cannot: the x402 per-call charge of 0.005 USDC, the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, and the API-key alternative that avoids per-call cost. That is exactly the kind of extra behavioral disclosure that matters for invocation.

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 front-load the data contents and the usage trigger, followed by a clearly bracketed access note. No filler and no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the three data groupings returned. That is sufficient for an agent to decide relevance, though it doesn't hint at response shape or freshness/update cadence, a minor gap for a zero-param read tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does add a summary of what data comes back, which is useful even though it isn't parameter semantics.

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?

Names a specific resource (global stablecoin metrics) and enumerates its contents: total supply, per-chain breakdown, and top stablecoins by market cap. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_global_market or get_market_data without needing to open the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering user intents (stablecoin supply, USDC/USDT dominance, overall market liquidity). It does not name alternative tools for overlapping liquidity questions, so it stops short of the 5-level routing guidance, but the 'when' is unambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.