crypto_price
Coinbase spot/buy/sell price with spread percent ($0.002 USDC on Base, x402)
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Quote asset code, e.g. USD | |
| from | Yes | Base asset code, e.g. BTC |
sigtap Agent Tools
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful detail about output content (spot/buy/sell price and spread percent) and a cost mention ($0.002 USDC on Base, x402), though that parenthetical is cryptic. It does not disclose return format, edge cases, or rate limits, but the basic behavior is transparent enough.
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 front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The main functionality appears first, and the appended parenthetical adds a specific detail without bloating the text. Slight crypticness in 'x402' prevents a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter price lookup, the description covers the core behavior and the schema covers the parameters. However, with no output schema, the return shape is only hinted at ('price with spread percent'), and the fee/network parenthetical is ambiguous. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'from' and 'to' asset codes. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does contextualize the pair as a Coinbase price quote. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a price lookup tool for Coinbase, specifying spot, buy, and sell prices plus spread percent. It names the resource ('Coinbase spot/buy/sell price') and implies the operation (fetch/quote), but lacks an explicit verb. No sibling tool conflicts with this purpose.
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?
The description gives clear context that this tool is for Coinbase price data, so an agent could infer when to use it. However, it does not state when not to use it or reference any alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance beyond the implied purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: catalog lists the paid tools, and the others cover distinct utilities like crypto pricing, email deliverability, hashing, JWT decoding, regex, slugify, UUID generation, and weather. Even the three email-related tools are clearly separated by description: deliverability audit, score, and template.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case noun_noun pattern (crypto_price, domain_age, email_grade), but catalog and weather are bare nouns, slugify is verb-based, and jwt_decode is object+verb. The pattern is readable despite the inconsistency, but not uniform.
Tool Count4/5
Thirteen tools is within the reasonable range for a paid micro-tool marketplace, and each tool has its own niche. The presence of a meta-catalog tool plus 12 discrete utilities makes the count feel slightly like a grab-bag, but still well-scoped for the stated purpose.
Completeness4/5
The advertised surface is a catalog of exactly 12 paid tools, and all 12 utilities are present and functional with free preview routes mentioned. There is no obvious missing operation for a stateless utility collection, though the heterogeneous nature of the tools makes completeness less meaningful than for a focused domain server.