Nansen

Analyzing token quant scores

token_quant_scores

Get Nansen Score Indicators for a token - quantitative risk and reward signals.

Use this tool when assessing a token's risk/reward profile, evaluating buy/sell decisions, or when the user needs quantitative data to make trading decisions.

Returns: Token risk/reward indicators as markdown with interpretation guidance.

Token info:
- **Market Cap**: Current market cap in USD
- **Market Cap Group**: largecap (>$1B), midcap ($100M-$1B), or lowcap (<$100M)
- **Is Stablecoin**: Whether token is a stablecoin (some indicators don't apply to stablecoins)

Fields returned per indicator:
- **Score**: Signal classification (bullish/neutral/bearish for reward; low/medium/high for risk)
- **Signal**: Raw numeric value of the indicator
- **Percentile**: Rank vs same market cap group (0-100%)
- **Last Trigger**: Date when signal was last calculated

Indicator types:
- **Reward Indicators**: price-momentum, funding-rate, chain-fees, chain-tvl, protocol-fees, trading-range
- **Risk Indicators**: btc-reflexivity, liquidity-risk, token-supply-inflation, concentration-risk, cex-flows

Notes: - Not all indicators available for every token/chain combination - Percentile compares against same market cap group (largecap >$1B, midcap $100M-$1B, lowcap <$100M)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedMay 19, 2026

removedInput schema / $defs

Removed value: -{
-  "TokenQuantScoresRequest": {
-    "description": "Request model for Nansen Score Indicators endpoint (flattened).",
-    "properties": {
-      "chain": {
-        "default": "ethereum",
-        "description": "Blockchain chain (ethereum, solana, base, bnb, polygon, arbitrum, etc.). On-chain tokens only — Hyperliquid perps NOT supported.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "tokenAddress": {
-        "description": "Token contract address",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "tokenAddress"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-}

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedInput schema / properties / request / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/TokenQuantScoresRequest"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "description": "Request model for Nansen Score Indicators endpoint (flattened).",
+    "properties": {
+      "chain": {
+        "default": "ethereum",
+        "description": "Blockchain chain (ethereum, solana, base, bnb, polygon, arbitrum, etc.). On-chain tokens only — Hyperliquid perps NOT supported.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "tokenAddress": {
+        "description": "Token contract address",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "tokenAddress"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

Changed1 schema field changedApr 24, 2026

changedInput schema / $defs / TokenQuantScoresRequest / properties / chain / description

Previous value: -"Blockchain chain (ethereum, solana, base, bnb, polygon, arbitrum, etc.)"New value: +"Blockchain chain (ethereum, solana, base, bnb, polygon, arbitrum, etc.). On-chain tokens only — Hyperliquid perps NOT supported."

First observedFeb 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (markdown with interpretation guidance), the list of indicators, the note that not all indicators are available for every token/chain, and the market cap group logic. It does not discuss potential side effects or auth requirements, but for a read-only data tool, the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then structured with clear sections for returns, indicator types, and notes. It is longer than the minimal example but every section adds value, such as the stablecoin caveat and market cap grouping. It is not overly verbose for the complexity of the tool.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the output format, indicator categories, and important limitations. It lacks clarity on the request parameter structure, but the schema partially covers that. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, with the main gap being parameter semantics.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the tool description must compensate for explaining parameters. The description does not explain the 'request' object structure or how to specify token/chain. It only mentions 'token/chain combination' in notes. The schema itself has some descriptions for 'chain' and 'tokenAddress', but the outer union parameter is left unexplained. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Nansen Score Indicators for a token - quantitative risk and reward signals.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on quantitative risk/reward indicators and lists the specific indicator types, making it unique among the other token-related tools.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this tool when assessing a token's risk/reward profile, evaluating buy/sell decisions, or when the user needs quantitative data to make trading decisions.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Nansen tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (address vs token vs prediction market vs transaction). Overlapping tools like token_discovery_screener and nansen_score_top_tokens, or address_counterparties and address_related_addresses, are explicitly disambiguated with detailed usage guidance. A few tools (token_flows vs token_recent_flows_summary) require careful reading but are still distinguishable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with resource prefixes (address_*, token_*, prediction_market_*). Minor deviations include general_search, growth_chain_rank, and nansen_score_top_tokens, and some names like smart_traders_and_funds_perp_trades are verbose but still follow the pattern.

Tool Count3/5

38 tools is a heavy surface, but it matches Nansen's broad domain covering address analytics, token intelligence, prediction markets, and Hyperliquid perps. The count is on the high end and may overwhelm agents, but each tool appears to serve a distinct function within a reasonably scoped analytics platform.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is comprehensive: address lifecycle (portfolio, transactions, balances, counterparties, PnL), token analytics (price, OHLCV, indicators, flows, transfers, holders, discovery), prediction markets (lookup, orderbook, trades, top holders, PnL), and specialized features (smart money, chain rankings). No obvious dead ends or missing critical operations are apparent.

Resources

Need Help?