OSINT(info): cross public market data vs media narrative + fear/greed; flags narrative-vs-price discrepancy. INFORMATION ONLY. input=btc|eth|... [x402: 10.0 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | service input |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'INFORMATION ONLY' to indicate a read-only/no-side-effect operation and discloses the pay-per-use cost via x402 on Base. It also describes the comparison behavior rather than just claiming to fetch data. Missing rate limits or data-source caveats keep it from a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the purpose, information-only constraint, input format, and pricing all packed into one line. There is little filler, though the 'OSINT(info)' prefix and trailing ellipsis are slightly cryptic and could have been written more plainly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers input, purpose, cost, and side-effect profile. However, because there is no output schema, the description should have explained what the returned flag or discrepancy report looks like; that is absent, leaving an agent to infer the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema's parameter description is only 'service input' and is not meaningfully self-describing. The tool description compensates by documenting expected values: 'input=btc|eth|...' tells the agent this is an asset identifier. It does not give a complete enumeration or validation rules, but it makes the parameter usable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb plus resource: cross-reference public market data against media narrative and fear/greed, then flag discrepancies. It is specific to assets like BTC/ETH and readable as an OSINT info service. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as discrepancy-detector or market-data, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: call this when you want a narrative-vs-price reality check for a crypto asset. 'INFORMATION ONLY' signals that this is not a trading or execution tool, but the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools like crypto-price, osint-signal, or discrepancy-detector.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains many trivially indistinct tools: ai-inference/inference, compress/comprimir, count-tokens/contar-tokens, detect-language/language-detect, and multiple overlapping OCR receipt variants. With 160 tools and pairs that differ only by language or suffix, an agent cannot reliably distinguish several capabilities.
Most names are readable lower-hyphen identifiers, but they mix action verbs, noun phrases, domain prefixes, pipeline suffixes, Spanish/English, and arbitrary demo/batch labels. There is a loose convention, but no consistent verb_noun pattern.
160 tools on one server is an extreme count and clearly unwieldy. Even as a marketplace, exposing every variant, demo, and composed bundle as a top-level MCP tool overwhelms agent selection and adds little distinct capability.
The set covers a huge range of text, image, audio, code, market, compliance, and content-workflow tasks, so many intents have some available tool. However, it is a grab-bag rather than a defined service surface, and the arbitrary demo/specialized variants make it unclear whether a needed operation truly exists or is just a duplicate.