Skip to main content
Glama

CIPHER x402 — Paid Solana & Crypto Tools

by io.github.cryptomotifs

check_drift_exposure

Check a Solana wallet's exposure to Drift Protocol — open perp positions, collateral, unrealized PnL, liquidation risk distance. Priced at $0.01 USDC on Base (x402). Pass a signed x402 v2 authorization as the '_payment' argument to unlock the paid response. Without it, the tool returns the 402 accept-list for your wallet to sign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletYesBase58 Solana wallet address.
_paymentNoOptional. Signed x402 v2 X-PAYMENT header value (base64-encoded EIP-3009 authorization). If present, forwarded upstream; if absent, tool returns the 402 accept-list.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly discloses the paywall behavior: without payment, it returns an accept-list; with payment, it returns exposure data. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention rate limits or other destructive actions, but the transparency about the paywall is commendable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently conveys function and payment mechanism without unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description lists specific data returned (open perp positions, collateral, etc.) and explains the two response types. It lacks mention of prerequisites like wallet existence but is generally complete for a simple tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the _payment parameter's role in unlocking paid responses and mentioning the cost. The wallet parameter is straightforward.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks a Solana wallet's exposure to Drift Protocol, specifying data points like open perp positions and collateral. While it distinguishes from general wallet tools through specificity, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like solana_wallet_scan.

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?

The description explains the payment mechanism and two modes (with/without _payment), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools such as solana_wallet_scan or solana_wallet_security_audit_rules.

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

All CIPHER x402 — Paid Solana & Crypto Tools 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions, and there is no functional overlap between any tools, even those in similar domains like geocoding (forward vs reverse) or Solana wallet analysis (general scan vs specific protocol exposure).

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (check_drift_exposure), others use data source prefix (coinalyze_funding_rates, openfda_adverse_events), and a few use domain prefix (solana_wallet_scan). This mixture of conventions makes it hard to predict naming for similar functions.

Tool Count2/5

The server claims to be for Solana & Crypto but only 6 of 15 tools are crypto-related, while the rest cover unrelated domains like medical, nutrition, and geocoding. This dilutes focus and suggests the tool count is mismatched for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Paid Solana & Crypto Tools', the crypto toolset is incomplete, missing common operations like token swaps, DeFi protocol interactions, or NFT queries. The inclusion of many non-crypto tools does not fill these gaps.

Resources