SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Cross-chain transfer volume from Wormholescan: USD

crypto_cross_chain_bridge_flows

Read-only

Cross-chain transfer volume from Wormholescan (Wormhole network): USD and token counts grouped by source to destination chain over the newest N transfers (1 to 100). A recent window, not total bridge TVL or long-term trends. Transfers with no USD price are counted but not summed. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_btc_chain_tips when you need recent stale/orphaned Bitcoin blocks and sidechain forks; crypto_dydx_chain_markets when you need dYdX v4 perpetual market for one ticker: status, oracle. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_cross_chain_bridge_flows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many of the newest transfers to read, 1 to 100 (default 50)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`routes`	No
`source`	No
`windowTo`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`windowFrom`	No
`usdVolumeTotal`	No
`windowTransfers`	No
`unpricedTransfers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint it discloses real behavioral details: transfers without a USD price are counted but excluded from sums (a data-quality caveat an agent must know before reporting totals), the result covers only the newest N transfers rather than an exhaustive ledger, and it spells out billing ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls free).

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 the core purpose and window scope, followed by the useful missing-price caveat and pricing. The final sentence listing two loosely related tools for 'a different need' is filler relative to this tool's actual decision, costing some efficiency but not obscuring the main point.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, window semantics, edge-case handling, and cost — everything needed to call it correctly. The only shortfall is that it does not point to the closest comparable bridge-flow source on the server, leaving the selection decision slightly under-supported.

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?

The single 'limit' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the 1-100 range and default of 50. The description restates 'newest N transfers (1 to 100)' without adding meaning the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 ('Cross-chain transfer volume from Wormholescan'), the network (Wormhole), the grouping dimension (source to destination chain), and the metric (USD and token counts). It explicitly contrasts itself with bridge TVL and long-term trend tools, so an agent can distinguish this from adjacent analytics without opening the schema.

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 an explicit when-not: 'A recent window, not total bridge TVL or long-term trends' rules out using it for TVL or historical trend questions. However, the two named related tools (crypto_btc_chain_tips, crypto_dydx_chain_markets) are not real alternatives for this need, and the genuinely closer sibling crypto_circle_cctp_transfers is never mentioned, so the routing guidance is helpful but partly misdirected.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

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

Need Help?