Skip to main content
Glama

tech-risk

by io.github.rezearcher

crypto_funding

Live cross-venue perpetual-futures funding rates from Hyperliquid+OKX+dYdX (per-venue rate, arb spread in bps, cheapest-long/richest-short venue, premium/basis, annualized_hl, annualized_okx, LONGS_PAY/SHORTS_PAY/NEUTRAL signal, next_funding_ts, mark/oracle price, open interest, day volume), ranked by volume. Venues that are unreachable or don't list a given coin are omitted per-coin — Hyperliquid is always present. Cost: $0.005 USDC per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results, default 20, max 100

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits: cost per call, venue inclusion/exclusion logic, that Hyperliquid is always present, ordering, and data fields. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the x402 cost indicates payment.

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 dense but informative, listing all returned fields. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be improved with bullet points for readability.

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 complexity of multiple venues and many fields, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and includes important context like cost and omission logic. However, it does not clarify whether results cover multiple coins or a single coin; it implies multiple but could be more explicit.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already describes the single parameter 'limit' with default and max. The description adds no additional meaning or context for this parameter, so it scores at the baseline of 3 for 100% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides live cross-venue perpetual-futures funding rates from specific exchanges, listing fields and ranking by volume. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'crypto_funding_preview', which likely provides a sample.

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 usage for live full-rate data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the preview sibling or other tools. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All tech-risk 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are organized into clear families (chain, crypto, defi, pm, enrich, scan) and each targets a distinct data type. The preview tools are explicitly labeled as free samples, reducing but not eliminating confusion with their paid counterparts. Some overlap exists between chain_wallet and chain_balance, and between enrich_domain and enrich_tech_risk, but descriptions clarify the difference.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern using snake_case (chain_balance, crypto_funding, enrich_domain). Preview tools consistently append '_preview' to their paid counterpart. The only minor variation is abbreviations like 'tx', 'pm', 'defi', but these are uniform.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The eight preview tools duplicate the functionality of their paid versions and inflate the count, though they serve a legitimate 'try before pay' purpose. The remaining 14 paid tools cover a wide range of risk data, making the count borderline appropriate.

Completeness4/5

The set covers on-chain balances, token security, DeFi yields, crypto prices, funding rates, prediction markets, domain enrichment, tech-risk CVE scanning, and MCP server auditing, which is a comprehensive risk toolkit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical data, no address reputation, no token price by address), but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources