Skip to main content
Glama

terminalfeed

by io.github.RipperMercs

tf_premium_feed_reliability

Premium reliability breakdown. For every monitored feed, a 0-100 composite reliability score with subscores (uptime, availability, staleness rate, dark rate), a sample-size trust tier, and a low_coverage flag, scored from rolling ok/stale/dark counts probed every 5 minutes. Ranked, with low-sample feeds parked separately. captured_at is the monitor real check time, so a stalled monitor (>48h) no-charges. The free preview is GET /api/feed-reliability (top-line table, no auth); this paid tier adds the signed receipt and the full per-feed breakdown. Costs 2 credits ($0.04 USDC). Requires Authorization: Bearer tf_live_<64-char-hex>.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations indicating non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description transparently discloses that it costs 2 credits, requires Authorization, and has a no-charge condition for stalled monitors. It explains the scoring methodology and data freshness, adding significant value beyond the annotations.

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 relatively detailed but every sentence adds value: it covers purpose, scoring, free preview, cost, auth, and data freshness. It is well-structured but could be slightly tightened without losing information. Earns a 4 for being efficient and informative.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return fields (composite score, subscores, trust tier, low_coverage flag, captured_at), the underlying data source, the free preview alternative, authentication, and cost. It leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does and its caveats.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none, and the schema already covers everything (100% coverage). No extra semantic information needed.

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 what it returns: a premium reliability breakdown with composite scores, subscores, trust tier, and low_coverage flag. It distinguishes from the free preview but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like the history endpoint. Lacks a specific verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', so falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides context about when charges apply (stalled monitor >48h no charges) and mentions the free preview as an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of other premium tools (e.g., history vs. current breakdown). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

All terminalfeed 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., tf_btc_price vs tf_fear_greed), but there is some overlap between free and premium aggregated tools (e.g., tf_briefing, tf_premium_briefing, tf_premium_agent_context). However, descriptions explicitly differentiate them by content and cost.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent pattern: 'tf_' prefix (with 'tf_premium_' for premium ones) and snake_case. Names are descriptive and predictable, e.g., tf_btc_price, tf_earthquakes, tf_premium_macro.

Tool Count3/5

27 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (crypto, finance, earthquakes, AI trends, payment system, etc.). Each tool serves a specific purpose, so the count is borderline acceptable but feels slightly heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of data feeds: crypto, forex, macro indicators, earthquakes, HN, HuggingFace, prediction markets, payment system, and service status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated stock prices tool beyond premium macro, no weather), but overall it's comprehensive for a terminal feed.

Resources