Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

macro_snapshot

Macro economic snapshot API — dated Eurozone economic indicators for trading/research agents: euro-area inflation (HICP / CPI), ECB policy interest rates (deposit, refi), unemployment and EUR FX from the official European Central Bank data portal — each indicator with value, as_of date, next_release cadence and a signed dated snapshot receipt for reproducible backtests. The interest-rate, inflation and currency context an agent needs before trading. Price: $0.005 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoHICP reference area: 'U2' (euro area, default) or a country code e.g. 'FR','DE'
indicatorsNoComma-separated: inflation_hicp, core_inflation, unemployment, deposit_facility_rate, main_refi_rate, marginal_lending_rate, fx_usd, fx_gbp, fx_jpy, fx_chf

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details what the tool returns (value, as_of date, next_release cadence, receipt) and mentions pricing and payment method. This gives sufficient transparency for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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?

The description is detailed (5 sentences) but efficient, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value; could be slightly shorter but no unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given only 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output structure (value, as_of, next_release, receipt). No gaps in understanding what the tool returns.

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%, but the description adds context: area default 'U2' and lists exact indicator names (e.g., 'deposit_facility_rate'). This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 it's a 'Macro economic snapshot API' for Eurozone indicators, listing specific data points (HICP, ECB rates, unemployment, EUR FX) and source (ECB). It differentiates from siblings like ecb_exchange_rate by covering a broader set of indicators.

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 targets 'trading/research agents' and mentions context needed before trading, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., ecb_exchange_rate for just FX). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All x402-endpoints 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, there are clusters of similar tools (e.g., multiple token safety and pre-trade verdict tools for different chains) that could cause confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case with descriptive prefixes (e.g., agent_, crypto_, x402_). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count2/5

52 tools is excessive for a single server, covering a wide range of unrelated domains (crypto, legal, climate, transport, etc.). This overwhelms an agent and suggests a lack of focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain; it offers one-off tools across many areas but misses fundamental operations for any specific domain (e.g., no company registry for US, no order placement for crypto). Significant gaps exist.

Resources