Real-time prices for BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP ($0.002 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, the description carries the burden, and it adds a few behavioral clues: the data is real-time and there is a $0.002 USDC charge. However, the payment requirement and the call-without-payment-first behavior are expressed only implicitly or in the schema, not clearly explained in the tool description itself.
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 very short and front-loads the core value. The parenthetical cost note is ambiguous, so conciseness is achieved at some cost to clarity.
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?
For a one-parameter paid API with no output schema, the description is thin. It states the asset coverage and real-time nature, but does not mention the response format, the unit of returned prices, the payment flow, or the relationship to try_crypto_prices. The schema covers the payment payload, but the description does not fully contextualize the calling experience.
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 input schema already documents the payment parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds at least a cost clue ($0.002 USDC) beyond the schema, providing useful context for how payment should be configured, though the connection is not made explicit.
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 clearly states the tool returns real-time prices for a specific, named set of assets (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP), which makes its core purpose identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling try_crypto_prices or other pricing tools, so it misses full differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of try_crypto_prices, get_market_overview, or get_historical. The parenthetical $0.002 USDC hints at a paid call but does not explain the required two-step payment flow or when the free/no-payment call should be made.
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.