Skip to main content
Glama

AgentData — crypto market data with a checkable record

by io.github.speteai

get_overnight_risk_brief

Decision-ready overnight risk brief ($0.015 USDC): DEX-vs-CEX spreads, liquidation zones, funding predictions, sentiment, stablecoin health, and recorded changes since this wallet last called it. Same total price as the five parts, one settlement instead of five.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paymentNoOptional. 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a $0.015 USDC cost, one-settlement billing behavior, and stateful wallet-scoped 'recorded changes,' which are useful behavioral traits. The exact x402 payment flow is delegated to the parameter schema, which is acceptable given the small parameter surface.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single dense sentence that packs price, contents, wallet scope, and billing behavior without filler. The long parenthetical list is slightly hard to scan, but every element earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with one optional parameter, a thorough parameter schema, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and how it is billed. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the enumerated components make the response expectation sufficiently clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, payment, is fully described in the input schema (Base64 x402 payload, ERC-3009, USDC on Base, call-once flow), so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the already-stated single-settlement model.

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 names the resource (overnight risk brief) and enumerates its specific components: DEX-vs-CEX spreads, liquidation zones, funding predictions, sentiment, stablecoin health, and wallet-scoped recorded changes. This clearly distinguishes it from the individual sibling tools and communicates what the agent will receive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly positions this as a single-settlement bundle that replaces five separate parts at the same total price, giving the agent a clear reason to select it over calling the individual tools. It does not state counter-indications such as 'use individual tools when only one component is needed,' so it stops short of a 5.

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

All AgentData — crypto market data with a checkable record toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources