SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Crypto market tickers: rank, name, symbol, price, 24h

finance_nomics_crypto

Read-only

Crypto market tickers (replacement for the closed Nomics ticker API): rank, name, symbol, price, 24h volume, market cap, circulating/total/max supply, % change over 15m, 1h, 24h, 7d, 30d, 1y, all-time high price/date and distance from it, in USD or another quote (EUR, GBP, JPY, TRY, BTC, ETH). Top coins by rank, or specific CoinPaprika ids (btc-bitcoin, eth-ethereum). Data from CoinPaprika's public API. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_coinlore_crypto when you need CoinLore ranked crypto list: USD price, market cap, 24h; finance_dia_crypto_oracle when you need DIA crypto price oracle: current USD price for one asset. 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": "finance_nomics_crypto"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Up to 10 CoinPaprika ids, comma separated (e.g. btc-bitcoin,sol-solana); omit for the top list
`limit`	No	Top list size, 1 to 100 (default 20)
`quote`	No	USD, EUR, GBP, JPY, TRY, BTC, ETH (default USD)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`quote`	No
`source`	No
`results`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld; the description adds the material operational facts an agent needs: the upstream source (CoinPaprika public API), the payment model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and that failed calls are not charged. That is genuinely new behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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 resource and field list, then alternatives, then pricing — a logical order with no filler sentences. The long enumeration of percentage-change windows is dense but each item is informative rather than redundant.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs given that an output schema exists: data source, id format, quote options, list-size behavior, cost and payment mechanics, and failure-charge policy. Return-value structure is correctly left to the output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents ids, limit and quote. The description restates the allowed quote currencies and adds concrete id examples (btc-bitcoin, eth-ethereum) plus a hint that ids should be CoinPaprika-style, which is modest added value over the schema baseline.

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 resource (crypto market tickers) with the exact field set returned (rank, price, volume, market cap, supplies, multi-period % change, ATH distance) and the quote-currency options. It also positions itself against siblings by naming finance_coinlore_crypto and finance_dia_crypto_oracle with their distinct purposes.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'finance_coinlore_crypto when you need CoinLore ranked crypto list' and 'finance_dia_crypto_oracle when you need DIA crypto price oracle'. It also explains the two modes (top list when ids omitted vs specific CoinPaprika ids). No guidance is given relative to the many other ticker siblings (finance_coinpaprika_tickers, finance_coingecko, finance_coinmarketcap), so coverage of alternatives is partial.

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?