fia-signals-mcp
Server Details
Crypto market intelligence: regime detection, funding rates, liquidations, prices, signals.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 2.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
Tools 1 and 3 have nearly identical descriptions, both returning a paid contract_risk checkout endpoint, making it difficult for an agent to distinguish between them. Tool 2 is distinct but still related, causing overall ambiguity.
Naming mixes patterns: 'contract_risk_batch_checkout' and 'token_safety_batch_checkout' are noun-heavy, while 'contract_risk_preview' uses a different verb style. No consistent verb_noun pattern is evident.
Three tools is borderline low for a server covering contract risk and token safety, but it may be acceptable for a focused preview/batch checkout scenario. However, the duplication reduces the effective surface.
The tool set lacks basic operations like a simple risk check, status query, or payment initiation, leaving significant gaps in the workflow. The preview suggests a paid path, but no way to complete the purchase is provided.
Available Tools
6 toolscontract_risk_batch_checkoutBInspect
Return paid x402 contract-risk batch endpoint and ACP contract_risk checkout metadata without making a payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| token_addresses | No | Comma-separated EVM token addresses, maximum 5. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description partially indicates behavior: it is a read-only operation that returns metadata without payment. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, idempotency, or authorization needs.
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 a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It effectively communicates the core function, though a bit more structure could improve readability.
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 no annotations, output schema, or detailed parameter descriptions, the description falls short. It doesn't explain return format, error handling, or how this tool fits with siblings.
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 50%, with 'token_addresses' having a description. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema, missing explanations for 'x402' or 'chain' default behavior.
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 identifies the tool returns metadata for a contract-risk batch checkout without payment. It uses specific nouns like 'paid x402 contract-risk batch endpoint' and 'ACP contract_risk checkout metadata', but doesn't differentiate from sibling 'contract_risk_preview'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'contract_risk_preview' or 'token_safety_batch_checkout'. The description only states the action, not the context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
contract_risk_previewCInspect
Free live preview for Fia's paid contract_risk/token-safety checkout path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| token_address | Yes | EVM token contract address to screen before a swap. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Free live preview' without disclosing behavioral traits such as what happens on failure, rate limits, or the extent of the preview. The agent is left uninformed about tool behavior.
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 a single vague sentence that fails to provide adequate information. It is under-specified rather than concise, lacking key details about functionality and usage.
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 no output schema, the description should explain what the preview returns (e.g., risk scores, warnings). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output and completeness.
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 description coverage is 50%: token_address has a description, but chain lacks any description beyond a default. The description does not add meaning to either parameter, leaving the chain parameter unexplained.
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 states 'Free live preview for Fia's paid contract_risk/token-safety checkout path,' which is vague. It does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., screens a token for risk) or distinguish it from the sibling tool token_safety_batch_checkout.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the paid path or the sibling. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
guarded_swap_execute_dry_run_checkoutCInspect
Return the free Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create handoff packet for guarded_swap_execute_dry_run before a Base swap. Metadata only; ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| amount | No | ||
| to_token | No | WETH | |
| from_token | No | USDC | |
| risk_tolerance | No | medium | |
| max_slippage_bps | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata only and does not execute payment, but fails to mention any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether it modifies state. The behavioral transparency is insufficient.
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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is dense with domain-specific terms that reduce clarity. It could be restructured to front-load the purpose and then detail the scope.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter context, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify return format, behavior under failure, or how to interpret the packet. The agent lacks information to use the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the six parameters (chain, amount, to_token, from_token, risk_tolerance, max_slippage_bps). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are ambiguous without context.
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 mentions returning a packet for a dry run before a Base swap, but uses specialized jargon like 'x402 bridge' and 'Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create packet' without explanation. It vaguely indicates a metadata-only operation, but does not clearly state the tool's primary function or how it differs from sibling checkout tools.
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 hints that this is a dry run ('Metadata only; payment/job creation is buyer-controlled'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contract_risk_batch_checkout or token_safety_batch_checkout. It lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
offer_angle_ping_acp_checkoutCInspect
Return the free Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create handoff packet for offer_angle_ping. Metadata only; ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | first external buyer | |
| symptom | No | listed but no paid jobs | |
| target_buyer | No | buyer agents | |
| current_offer | No | ||
| current_price | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata and that payment/job creation is buyer-controlled, indicating no side effects on the server side. However, it omits authentication needs, rate limits, and what happens in error cases, leaving significant gaps.
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 with two sentences, front-loading the core function. However, brevity comes at the cost of omitting crucial details.
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 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details.
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?
The schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters or their meanings. This offers no value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter roles.
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 states the tool returns a specific packet (paid x402 bridge and Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create packet) for offer_angle_ping. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'metadata only; payment/job creation is buyer-controlled', which sets it apart from other checkout-related tools that may execute payments. However, heavy jargon may confuse some agents.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. A minimal implied usage exists (for offer_angle_ping scenarios), but no alternatives or exclusions are noted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
token_safety_batch_checkoutCInspect
Return paid x402 endpoint and ACP contract_risk checkout metadata without making a payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| token_addresses | No | Comma-separated EVM token addresses, maximum 5. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'without making a payment', implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on other traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal transparency.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action verb 'Return'. Could be improved by integrating more detail without becoming verbose, but currently efficient.
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?
No output schema, yet description only vaguely mentions 'x402 endpoint and ACP contract_risk checkout metadata'. Lacks detail on return structure, parameter use contexts, and error conditions. Incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.
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 50% (only 'token_addresses' has a description). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain 'chain' default behavior or constraints, failing to compensate for low coverage.
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 states the tool returns metadata for a checkout process without payment, using specific terms like 'x402 endpoint' and 'ACP contract_risk'. However, these terms are jargon and may not be universally understood, slightly reducing clarity. It avoids tautology and distinguishes from the sibling 'contract_risk_preview' by focusing on checkout metadata.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'contract_risk_preview'. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context for use, leaving the agent to infer based on name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
token_safety_check_acp_checkoutBInspect
Return the free Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create handoff packet for token_safety_check before a token swap. Metadata only; ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| token_address | Yes | EVM token contract address to screen before a swap. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns 'Metadata only' and that 'payment/job creation is buyer-controlled,' which clarifies that no state changes occur. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authorization requirements, or error conditions. Without annotations, the description partially compensates but is not comprehensive.
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 two sentences long and quickly conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (metadata-only). It is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words or details are present.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for a generic user. It explains what is returned and a critical limitation (buyer-controlled payment/job). However, it lacks usage guidelines and sibling differentiation, leaving some gaps for an AI agent to decide when to invoke it.
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?
The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (token_address has a description). The tool description does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides. The 'chain' parameter lacks description in both schema and description, relying on its default 'base'. Overall, the description does not enhance parameter understanding significantly.
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 states that the tool returns a 'paid x402 bridge and Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create packet for token_safety_check before a token swap.' It specifies the action (return a packet) and the context (before a token swap), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being focused on a specific safety check. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'token_safety_batch_checkout', leaving some ambiguity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or situations where this tool is or isn't appropriate. The phrase 'before a token swap' implies usage context but is not explicit about decision criteria.
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!