Skip to main content
Glama

CIPHER x402 — Paid Solana & Crypto Tools

by io.github.cryptomotifs

coinalyze_funding_rates

Fetch perpetual-futures funding-rate intelligence for a given base asset (e.g. 'BTC', 'ETH', 'SOL') aggregated across 17 major perp venues — Binance, Bybit, OKX, BitMEX, Deribit, dYdX, Hyperliquid, Bitfinex, Huobi, Kraken, Phemex, WOO X, Aster, Lighter, Coinbase, Gate.io, Vertex. Returns per-exchange rate + USD open interest, OI-weighted aggregate funding, divergence in bps, and max/min funding exchange — pre-computed for perp-arbitrage bots. 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
symbolYesBase asset ticker (1-12 alphanumerics), e.g. 'BTC', 'ETH', 'SOL', 'DOGE', 'XRP', 'AVAX', 'LINK', 'APT', 'SUI'.
_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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: paid tool, payment method (signed x402 v2), behavior without payment (returns 402 accept-list). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and does so adequately, though rate limits or auth beyond payment are not mentioned.

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?

Single dense paragraph is front-loaded with main function and covers all key points without redundancy. Minor improvement possible with structured breaks, but highly efficient overall.

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?

Despite no output schema, description thoroughly details return fields (per-exchange rate, OI, aggregate, divergence, max/min) and explains payment flow. Given the complexity of a paid multi-venue tool, the description is complete and actionable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Adds substantial meaning beyond schema: explains symbol as base asset with examples, describes _payment as signed authorization with upstream forwarding. Schema already has full coverage, but description enriches with aggregation context and return data details.

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?

Specifically states it fetches perpetual-futures funding rate intelligence for a base asset aggregated across 17 major venues, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover unrelated domains (audit, password, food, etc.).

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?

Provides clear usage context: intended for perp-arbitrage bots, requires $0.01 USDC payment on Base via x402 authorization. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the payment and aggregation details guide appropriate use.

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