Skip to main content
Glama

kr-crypto-intelligence

by io.github.bakyang2

get_global_vs_korea_divergence

Read-only

Light tier — premium between CoinGecko global price and Upbit Korean price + 1-2 sentence AI interpretation. 25 supported symbols. 60s cache. Returns prices (global_usd, korea_krw, fx_rate), divergence (premium_pct, direction, magnitude), context_signals (investment_warning, volume_spike_24h), and ai_interpretation (1-2 sentence English summary).

💰 Price: $0.05 USDC per call 💳 Payment: x402 micropayment on Base, Polygon, or Solana 🔧 Client: AgentCash, Pay.sh, or any x402 SDK 📖 Docs: https://api.printmoneylab.com/.well-known/x402

Args: symbol: Crypto symbol — supported: BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL, ADA, DOGE, DOT, MATIC, LINK, AVAX, ATOM, UNI, LTC, NEAR, OP, ARB, APT, ALGO, FTM, SUI, TRX, BCH, ETC, HBAR, SHIB

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolNoCrypto symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL, ADA, DOGE, DOT, MATIC, LINK, AVAX, ATOM, UNI, LTC, NEAR, OP, ARB, APT, ALGO, FTM, SUI, TRX, BCH, ETC, HBAR, SHIB)BTC

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral details such as 60s caching, the exact output fields, and the x402 payment requirement on multiple chains, which goes beyond the annotation information.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, output, pricing, and parameters. While the Args block duplicates schema information, the overall organization makes it easy to scan and the content is front-loaded.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description's coverage is adequate: it explains the purpose, output structure, cache behavior, payment method, and documentation link. It does not explicitly discuss when to use versus alternatives, which is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section simply repeats the schema's symbol list and default value without adding new semantics. No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond the structured schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: computing the premium between CoinGecko global price and Upbit Korean price with a short AI interpretation. It also highlights the 'light tier' nature, which differentiates it from the '_deep' sibling tool.

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?

Usage context is implied through 'Light tier' and '60s cache', but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives like get_kimchi_premium or get_global_vs_korea_divergence_deep. It does convey that the tool is paid, which is a relevant consideration.

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

All kr-crypto-intelligence 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (prices, alerts, news, health), but several overlap: get_kimchi_premium vs get_arbitrage_scanner both cover premium data, and get_kr_sentiment, get_market_read, and get_global_vs_korea_divergence_deep all provide AI analysis with different scopes, which could confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent get_<descriptive_noun> pattern in snake_case, with check_health as the only deviation, which is a conventional health-check exception. The naming is highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 17 tools, the server is on the heavy side per the calibration (16-25 feels heavy). While the domain is broad and each tool has a role, the existence of paired summary/deep variants adds redundancy that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a comprehensive Korean crypto intelligence surface: prices, premiums, arbitrage, alerts, sentiment, market analysis, FX, news, and health. Minor gaps like a general Korean crypto news tool or historical data are not critical but prevent a perfect score.

Resources