Skip to main content
Glama

The Undesirables TCG Oracle

by io.github.sailorpepe

market_snapshot

Daily TCG market snapshot with top movers, biggest gainers/losers, and volume leaders across all 25 supported card games.

PAID: $0.025 USDC per call (x402 — USDC on Base or Solana, or USDG on Robinhood Chain). Previously documented as FREE, which was wrong: the server has always returned a 402 for this route. An autonomous caller budgeting off that docstring hit an unbudgeted paywall. (External audit 2026-07-30, BUG-2.)

Use this when: a user asks "what's trending in the card market?" or "what cards are going up/down in value?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gameNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the tool is paid, the exact price, payment rails, and that it had previously been misdocumented as free, causing unbudgeted 402s. This is valuable beyond typical descriptions, though it does not discuss other operational traits like rate limits or output format.

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 key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the pricing and use-case notes are separated into concise blocks. The inclusion of audit and bug details adds length but is directly relevant to invoking the tool correctly. It is appropriately sized overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains the high-level output (top movers, gainers/losers, volume leaders) and the essential cost/payment behavior, but leaves the `game` parameter semantics unexplained. Since there is no output schema and no mention of response structure, the picture is incomplete for an agent needing to call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The only parameter, `game`, has no description in the schema, and the description never explains or elaborates on what it does or how it affects the result. The phrase 'across all 25 supported card games' is ambiguous about whether `game` filters or is optional. The description adds no practical meaning to the parameter.

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 the tool provides a 'Daily TCG market snapshot with top movers, biggest gainers/losers, and volume leaders across all 25 supported card games.' This is specific and understandable. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like `trending_cards` or `card_forecast`, so it does not fully achieve sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives explicit trigger contexts: 'Use this when: a user asks "what's trending in the card market?" or "what cards are going up/down in value?"' This is clear guidance, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to any specific alternative tool.

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

All The Undesirables TCG Oracle 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: card_forecast and simulate_price both return conformal-calibrated forecasts with Safe-Hold/Momentum grades; grade_card and grade_or_not both include ROI verdicts; check_accuracy and oracle_scorecard are both accuracy dashboards; market_snapshot and trending_cards both surface market movers. The descriptions carry some differentiators, but an agent would frequently misselect among these pairs.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (check_accuracy, grade_card, optimize_portfolio, search_tcg_products, simulate_price), while many are noun_noun or noun phrases (card_forecast, market_snapshot, oracle_scorecard, sports_board, souls_in_wallet). The result is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools sits in the heavy 16–25 band, and the server spans several domains: TCG pricing/forecasting/grading, souls and fantasy, the Syndicate game, and technocore. It is not extreme, but the count feels bigger than a single focused oracle needs.

Completeness4/5

The core card-market workflow is well covered: search, price forecast, simulation, trending, market snapshot, grading, ROI, loan preview, and accuracy verification are all present. Minor gaps include the paid loan quote for off-board cards not being exposed as an MCP tool and some redundancy between card_forecast and simulate_price, but no CRUD lidecycle is required for a read-only oracle.

Resources