Perpetual funding rates with long/short signals ($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?
The description discloses the cost ($0.002 USDC), but does not state the payment-gated behavior: that the first call should be made without payment to receive requirements, that the second call must include signed payment, or what the resolver does with the payload. Without annotations, the description leaves an important gate for a human caller entirely implicit; the crucial details live in the input schema instead.
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 definition is spare in the best way: one short sentence, front-loaded with the core resource ('perpetual funding rates') and the expected signals, and then a single cost qualifier. No filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter tool with the payment flow fully documented in the schema, the overall definition covers everything essential to invoke it correctly: what data is returned, what the long/short signal aspect is, and how the payment argument works. It only misses a short relationships to try_funding_rates, which would improve routing but is not required to know.
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 coverage is 100% and the single payment parameter already has a rich description covering the base64 x402 payload, ERC-3009 URI, the two-step signing flow, and the fact that the server never holds the key. The description's price mention adds economical context, but no new semantic detail 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?
The description identifies a specific resource in a clear noun phrase: perpetual funding rates with long/short signals. It still lacks an explicit verb, but it is appropriately distinguishable from siblings like get_funding_predictions because it targets rates rather than predictions.
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?
There is no 'when to use this vs alternatives' guidance. It does not mention try_funding_rates as a trial/preview option, nor fund predictions as a related but different signal. The only procedural guidance is embedded in the parameter schema, which is about payment flow, not tool selection.
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.