Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Verse by A-to-Mind

by io.github.atomeam
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Scan exchange price gaps (0.05 USDC, x402)

paid_arbitrage

Scan BTC or ETH price gaps across Coinbase, Kraken, Bitstamp, Gemini and Uniswap v3 on Base, read now from their order books: for your size, every buy-here-sell-there pair with the net dollars after both taker fees, DEX gas and your transfer cost. Read only: nothing is traded. Costs 0.05 USDC on Base (eip155:8453) per call, paid with x402 over MCP: call it without payment to get the PaymentRequired terms in structuredContent, then call it again with the signed PaymentPayload in params._meta["x402/payment"]. The settlement comes back in result._meta["x402/payment-response"]. A call that cannot be done (bad input, the service busy) is never charged. The same service over HTTP: POST https://a-to-mind.com/api/x402/arbitrage.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "coin": "<coin>"
    },
    "name": "paid_arbitrage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinYesBTC or ETH
feesNoyour taker fee per venue as a fraction, optional
sizeNodollars per trade, 10 to 250000 (default 1000)
venuesNocoinbase, kraken, bitstamp, gemini, uniswap; optional
transferUsdNocost to move the coin between venues, dollars (default 0: you hold both sides)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: exact price, chain, payment protocol steps, where the terms and settlement receipt appear (structuredContent, params._meta["x402/payment"], result._meta["x402/payment-response"]), and the important billing guarantee that failed or invalid calls are never charged. This explains why readOnlyHint=false despite the read-only scan: the payment settlement is the state change.

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?

Front-loaded with what is scanned and what is returned, then payment mechanics, then failure policy, then an HTTP mirror — a sensible ordering. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the opening sentence is long and would read better split.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the response content (venue pairs, net dollars after fees), the payment metadata locations, and the no-charge-on-failure rule. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and pay for this tool is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining the economic meaning of the inputs — results are computed 'for your size' net of both taker fees, DEX gas and transfer cost, which ties the size/fees/transferUsd parameters together. The loosely typed nested 'fees' object remains only partially clarified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — scan BTC/ETH price gaps across five named venues (Coinbase, Kraken, Bitstamp, Gemini, Uniswap v3 on Base) — and specifies the output shape: every buy-here/sell-there pair with net dollars after both taker fees, DEX gas and transfer cost. No sibling tool does anything similar, so the agent can route unambiguously.

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?

Gives concrete operating context: read-only scanning, no trading, cost of 0.05 USDC on eip155:8453 per call, plus a step-by-step x402 handshake (unpaid call to obtain PaymentRequired, then a paid call). It also names an HTTP alternative endpoint. It does not explicitly say when *not* to use it or contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Verse by A-to-Mind toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources