SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

DIA crypto price oracle: current USD price for one asset

finance_dia_crypto_oracle

Read-only

DIA crypto price oracle: current USD price for one asset symbol (e.g. BTC, ETH), yesterday's price and volume, from DIA's public quotation endpoint. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_coinlore_crypto when you need CoinLore ranked crypto list: USD price, market cap, 24h; crypto_defillama_tvl_oracle when you need current total value locked of one DeFi protocol. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "finance_dia_crypto_oracle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	Asset ticker, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`source`	No
`symbol`	No
`priceUsd`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`blockchain`	No
`priceYesterdayUsd`	No
`volumeYesterdayUsd`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context that annotations cannot carry — a per-call price ($0.002 USDC), the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and the fact that failed calls are not charged. It stops short of describing rate limits, latency, or symbol-resolution behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core purpose and source are front-loaded in the first clause, and each following sentence carries distinct payload (returned fields, sibling routing, pricing). It is dense but not padded; the sibling-routing clause is somewhat verbose relative to its value.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, output-schema-backed tool, the description covers source, returned fields, sibling disambiguation, and the unusual payment model, which is the main thing an agent could trip over. Minor omissions such as failure/error behavior beyond billing keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and the single required parameter is already documented as 'Asset ticker, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL'; the description's examples (BTC, ETH) merely echo that. It adds no meaning about symbol format, case sensitivity, or how ambiguous or unlisted tickers are handled — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('current USD price for one asset symbol') plus the data source ('DIA's public quotation endpoint'), and explicitly separates it from two named siblings (finance_coinlore_crypto, crypto_defillama_tvl_oracle). An agent can pick this tool without inspecting any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit routing conditions for the alternatives: use finance_coinlore_crypto for a ranked list with market cap and 24h data, use crypto_defillama_tvl_oracle for a protocol's TVL. That is a concrete when-to-use-which statement rather than implied guidance.

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?