Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Pulse Verity

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Pulse Asset Catalog

pulse_asset_catalog
Read-onlyIdempotent

Which crypto assets the Pulse Verity Index covers, at what grade, across how many venues, and how fast each one actually updates — cadence measured per asset from its own update intervals rather than from a poll schedule. Filter by coverage band (real-time, five-second, ten-second, slow, unavailable) or status (consensus, blended, indicative). Call this to find out whether a symbol is covered, and how thin it is, before quoting it. NOTE: these rows are UNSIGNED, including their prices — read a verifiable number through pulse_signed_price. Requires a Pulse API key via _apiKey. Example: pulse_asset_catalog({ limit: 5 }).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandNoCadence band: real-time, five-second, ten-second, slow, unavailable.
limitNoRows to return, max 500 (default 50).
offsetNoRow offset for paging.
statusNoCoverage grade: consensus, blended, indicative.
_apiKeyNoPulse Verity API key. Free and self-serve at https://thepulse.markets/developers (60 req/min, 25,000/month, no card).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 20,
+    "status": "consensus"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / examples
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "limit": 5
-  },
-  {
-    "limit": 20,
-    "status": "consensus"
-  }
-]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses critical data-quality behavior: rows are unsigned, prices are not verifiable, and cadence is measured per asset from its own update intervals rather than a poll schedule. This is genuinely useful context that affects how an agent interprets and uses the results.

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 well-structured: it starts with scope, then filters, then use case, then caveat and alternative. Every sentence adds information, and the example is helpful. The parenthetical cadence explanation is slightly long but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return dimensions (grade, venue count, cadence) and warns about the unsigned nature of results. It includes filters, the API key requirement, and points to the signed-price alternative. It could mention pagination or result format, but given the tool's read-only, catalog-like nature, it is complete enough for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that cadence bands reflect per-asset update intervals, not a global poll schedule, which deepens the semantics of the 'band' parameter. The example also demonstrates a realistic invocation.

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 identifies the resource (Pulse Verity Index assets) and enumerates the specific attributes returned (grade, venue count, cadence), which lets an agent know exactly what to expect. It also distinguishes itself from the pulse_signed_price sibling by stating its rows are unsigned, helping an agent pick the right tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to find out whether a symbol is covered, and how thin it is, before quoting it') and provides a clear alternative for verifiable numbers (pulse_signed_price). It also notes the API key requirement. It stops short of a formal when-not list, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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

All Pulse Verity toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources