Skip to main content
Glama

REGEN token trading volume, across every exchange it trades on

regen_token_volume
Read-onlyIdempotent

How much of the $REGEN token itself changes hands — NOT Regen ecocredit retirement volume, a completely different market (use regen_burn_tracker or the commons page for that). Returns live price, 24h volume, market cap, a 7-day trend read off real daily history, a per-exchange/DEX breakdown of where that volume actually happens, and the peak/most-recent complete month from a year of monthly history (the human page at /regen/volume.html has a full daily/monthly chart toggle). Sourced from CoinGecko's own aggregation. Free, keyless, read-only. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
toolNo
fundedNo
payUsdNo
workIdNo
claimIdNo
claimableNo
next_callNo
proofRuleNo
fulfillableByNo
definitionOfDoneNo
needs_from_callerNo
notClaimableReasonNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / claimable
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / notClaimableReason
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "claimId": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "definitionOfDone": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "object",
      +        "array",
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "fulfillableBy": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "funded": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "needs_from_caller": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "next_call": {
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "ok": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "payUsd": {
      +      "type": "number"
      +    },
      +    "proofRule": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "tool": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "workId": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the repeated 'free, keyless, read-only, nothing to sign' adds little. However, 'Sourced from CoinGecko's own aggregation' and the live/24h freshness framing disclose data provenance and staleness context the annotations do not.

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-loads the key disambiguation in the first clause, which is the highest-value content. The parenthetical human-page reference and some return-field enumeration are slightly padded, but nothing is misleading.

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?

Data source, freshness, and scope are covered, and an output schema exists so the return enumeration is not strictly needed. The description is more than sufficient for a parameterless read tool; minor redundancy rather than a gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing to mis-specify. No parameter-level guidance is needed or expected.

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+resource ('how much of the $REGEN token itself changes hands') and immediately distinguishes it from the confusingly similar ecocredit retirement volume. An agent can separate it from regen_burn_tracker and the commons page without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the wrong use case (ecocredit retirement volume) and redirects to alternatives (regen_burn_tracker, commons page). This is a clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use pairing with named alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources