coinverdict
Server Details
Free daily AI crypto research verdicts: graded stance, dimensions, and key levels for 67+ coins.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- OCArk/coinverdict-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- coinverdict-mcp
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available coins, the other retrieves the verdict for a specific coin, with no functional overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: get_verdict and list_coins, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for its domain; while it covers basic listing and retrieval, additional tools like search or batch operations would be expected for a more complete service.
The tools cover the core workflows of listing coins and getting a single verdict, but miss batch retrieval, historical data, or filtering capabilities, leaving notable gaps for more complex agent tasks.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_verdictAInspect
Get today's research verdict for a coin (e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL): stance (overweight/neutral/underweight), graded dimensions (technical/sentiment/funding/KOL), key levels, and a link to the full dossier. Refreshed daily; free; not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description shoulders full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (get), non-destructive, free, and gives output content. However, it does not detail auth needs, rate limits, or potential side effects.
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?
The description is concise (two sentences) with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by output details and disclaimers. No redundant information.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential usage: input symbol, output components, refresh frequency, and disclaimers. It is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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%, but the description adds meaning by providing example values (BTC, ETH, SOL) for the 'symbol' parameter. It does not, however, explain constraints or format beyond that.
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?
The description clearly specifies the tool retrieves today's research verdict for a coin, listing specific output components (stance, graded dimensions, key levels, link). It naturally distinguishes from sibling list_coins which likely provides available coins.
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 description states when to use (to get a verdict for a specific coin) and includes context like daily refresh and free status. It implies alternatives via sibling tool list_coins but does not explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_coinsAInspect
List all coins covered by CoinVerdict daily research verdicts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action and scope but lacks details on return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive or dynamic. Behavioral traits are missing.
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 sentence that is clear and concise, containing no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, single sibling), the description is fairly complete. However, it could include what the list contains (e.g., coin symbols or names) or how frequently it is updated, but the current text is minimally sufficient.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. The schema lists zero parameters with 100% coverage. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not contradict or omit anything.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists all coins covered by CoinVerdict daily research verdicts. The verb 'list' and resource 'coins' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool get_verdict (which retrieves a specific verdict).
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 context is implied (when you need a list of all coins), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_verdict, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.