Skip to main content
Glama

CIPHER x402 — Paid Solana & Crypto Tools

by io.github.cryptomotifs

usda_food_nutrition

USDA FoodData Central nutrition lookup. Query any food (brand or generic) and receive the best-matching record with a clean per_100g macro block (calories_kcal, protein_g, carb_g, fat_g, fiber_g, sugar_g, potassium_mg), plus alternates. Priced at $0.002 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
limitNoAlternates to return (1-10). Default 5.
queryYesFood name (e.g. 'banana', 'chicken breast raw').
_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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the output format (macro block plus alternates), the payment requirement ($0.002 USDC via x402), and the two response modes (paid vs. accept-list). It does not specify error handling or empty results, but the payment flow is well disclosed.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: identification, output details, pricing, and payment mechanism. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately details the return values (macro block and alternates) and the conditional behavior based on payment. It does not cover error cases or the structure of the accept-list, but the essential information for tool usage is present.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of 'limit' (controls number of alternates, default 5) and emphasizing that '_payment' unlocks the paid response. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 starts with 'USDA FoodData Central nutrition lookup', clearly stating the verb (lookup) and resource (food nutrition data). It further specifies that it handles both brand and generic foods, and there are no sibling tools in the same domain, so differentiation is not needed.

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 implies the tool is for nutrition queries on any food, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines, nor mention alternative tools. With no related siblings, the lack of explicit usage context is acceptable but not ideal.

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