Real-time crypto spot price for a trading pair (e.g. BTC-USD). Pay per call via x402 ($0.003, USDC on Base), or 1 credit(s) with a prepaid session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pair | No | e.g. BTC-USD; default BTC-USD |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the x402 payment model ($0.003, USDC on Base) and credit cost, which is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two sentence description, front-loaded with the core purpose and including essential payment details without any waste or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple; the schema fully covers the parameter and annotations cover safety. The missing output format is a minor gap, but the purpose implies the return value, and the payment context is extra useful information.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'pair' parameter documented with format and default. The description's mention of BTC-USD is redundant with the schema, so it adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides real-time spot price for a trading pair with an example (BTC-USD). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like funding_rates, which serves a different purpose.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use (real-time spot prices) and mentions the payment model, which is important for usage decisions. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: catalog for discovery/pricing, chat for LLM completion, crypto_price for spot prices, funding_rates for perp funding, and random for randomness. There is no overlap or ambiguity between any two tools.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscores pattern (catalog, chat, crypto_price, funding_rates, random). No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a multi-purpose utility API. Each tool provides a distinct service, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers the apparent domain (paid utility endpoints) well, including a catalog for discovery and payment instructions. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit balance/session status tool, but this is not critical for the core workflows.