Skip to main content
Glama

CIPHER x402 — Paid Solana & Crypto Tools

by io.github.cryptomotifs

osm_geocode

Forward geocoding via OpenStreetMap Nominatim. Address string → lat/lon + normalized address block (country_code, state, city, postcode, road) + match_quality label. Priced at $0.001 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
qYesAddress to geocode (e.g. '1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC').
_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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: output format (lat/lon, address block, match_quality), pricing ($0.001 USDC), payment mechanism (x402 v2), and the fallback behavior (returns 402 accept-list if no payment).

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 four sentences covering purpose, output, pricing, and payment behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input, output, pricing, and payment behavior. It lacks mention of error cases or rate limits, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 100%. For the `_payment` parameter, the description adds significant detail beyond the schema (x402 v2, base64-encoded EIP-3009 authorization). For `q`, it provides an example address, which adds context beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 clearly states the tool performs forward geocoding via OpenStreetMap Nominatim, converting an address string to lat/lon, normalized address block components, and a match_quality label. It distinguishes from sibling osm_reverse_geocode by its forward geocoding nature.

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 implicitly indicates it is for forward geocoding and mentions the payment requirement, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternative tools (e.g., osm_reverse_geocode) or provide guidance on when not to 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