Cross-exchange spreads MEXC/Binance/Bybit/OKX ($0.005 USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Optional. Base64 x402 payment payload you signed yourself (ERC-3009 TransferWithAuthorization, USDC on Base). Call without it once to receive the payment requirements, sign those, then call again with this argument. This server forwards the payload and never holds a key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / paymentAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional. Base64 x402 payment payload you signed yourself (ERC-3009 TransferWithAuthorization, USDC on Base). Call without it once to receive the payment requirements, sign those, then call again with this argument. This server forwards the payload and never holds a key.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does not. It does not explain whether the tool triggers payment, returns historical or live data, imposes rate limits, or what the $0.005 USDC value actually represents. The parenthetical phrase is too ambiguous to be considered transparent behavior.
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?
The description is extremely short and contains no filler, frontloading the exchange list and threshold. However, its brevity borders on under-specification; it skips useful structuring such as what is returned. As concise phrasing alone, it earns full marks for economy, but not for informativeness, which caps it at a 4.
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 has minimal parameters and the rich payment flow is already captured in the parameter schema, which helps completeness. But there is no output schema and the description does not indicate the shape or count of returned opportunities, nor clarify the '0.005 USDC' as a filter or fee. Given the missing output semantics and the debut gate of the payment parameter, a minimum-viable score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The single payment parameter is fully described in the input schema with a detailed explanation of the x402 flow, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, only the ambiguous '$0.005 USDC' note, which may or may not relate to payment cost. The parameter semantics are adequate because the schema description coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline.
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?
The description names the resource (cross-exchange spreads) and scopes it to four exchanges, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so it reads as a fragment rather than a clear statement of functionality. It also adds an ambiguous parenthetical '($0.005 USDC)' that could mean a fee threshold, a minimum spread, or something else, which clouds the purpose. It is distinguishable from many sibling tools by the 'arbitrage' scope, but the sentence itself does not confidently say what the agent will get.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as get_crypto_prices or get_funding_rates. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, nor when not to use it. The only context is the exchange list, which implies scope but not selection logic.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct metrics, but the paid/free sample pairs (get_crypto_prices/try_crypto_prices, etc.) and overlapping summary tools (get_market_overview, get_market_pulse, get_overnight_risk_brief) create some selection ambiguity. Descriptions list components, so an agent can disambiguate with effort, but the boundaries between bundles and single-purpose tools are not always obvious.
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern: get_ for data retrieval, try_ for free samples, and watch_condition for persistent monitoring. All names use lowercase snake_case with no mixed conventions, making the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
34 tools is well above the comfortable range for a typical MCP server and feels heavy even for a broad crypto data domain. The count is inflated by paid/free sample duplicates and multiple bundle variants that could have been consolidated.
The surface covers a wide range of crypto data: prices, funding, sentiment, arbitrage, derivatives, on-chain metrics, signal history, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist—such as no obvious generic signal discovery tool or order-book/trade-level data—but the core domain of market data with checkable records is thoroughly served.