AgentFeed

BTC spot price

get_btc_price

Read-onlyIdempotent

Live BTC/USD spot price (multi-source: Coinbase, Kraken, Pyth Hermes fallback). The confidence and publish_time fields are null unless Pyth Hermes served the request; Coinbase and Kraken publish neither. Costs 0.001 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana or Base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	the get_btc_price payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_btc_price
`tool`	Yes	the tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "the get_btc_price payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_btc_price",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "const": "get_btc_price",
+      "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tool",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral context: the multi-source fallback mechanism, the null confidence/publish_time behavior depending on the serving source, and the 0.001 USDC per-call cost. These are not covered by annotations and significantly inform an agent's invocation decisions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. The second sentence packs the fallback/null behavior and cost into a compact, information-dense statement with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the essential non-schema context: what the null fields mean, the source fallback, and the per-call monetary cost. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the input schema fully documents the parameter surface. The baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter-related meaning, but none is needed.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Live BTC/USD spot price' and names the exact data sources (Coinbase, Kraken, Pyth Hermes fallback). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_eth_price or get_spot, leaving no ambiguity about the asset or scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the asset name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The cost and multi-source nature provide context, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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

All AgentFeed tools Inspect

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.