The tool to call first, and it's free with no account. Lists the phases the model can report, the timeframes and currencies covered, and a short card for each phase explaining what it means and what tends to come next. Also returns the current pricing, so you can work out what a paid call costs before you make one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: no account required, free execution, and a pricing payload that enables cost estimation before paid calls. The return contents (phases, timeframes, currencies, cards) are also disclosed.
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?
Three compact sentences with no waste: the first front-loads the ordering directive and free/no-account facts, the second enumerates the returned content, and the third explains the pricing utility. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the call returns and why to call it, which is nearly complete. The only gap is the concrete response structure, and no output schema exists to compensate.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% and the baseline is 4. The description's note that the call is free with no account reinforces that no authentication or arguments are prerequisites.
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?
States a specific verb (lists) and resource (phase metadata: phases, timeframes, currencies, per-phase explanation cards, and pricing). The 'tool to call first' framing positions it as the metadata entry point, distinguishing it from siblings like get_phase and compose_phases.
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?
Explicitly instructs the agent to call it first and notes it is free with no account, and positions pricing as the way to estimate paid-call costs before spending. It gives clear ordering context but never names alternatives or states when not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a distinct role: account/billing tools (balance, usage, notifications, deposit poll) are clearly separated from market-data tools (single phase, batch phases, phase metadata, phase stats). Even get_phase and compose_phases are differentiated by single-coin/single-timeframe vs multi-coin/multi-timeframe, and the descriptions make that boundary explicit.
Most tools follow a get_ or verb_noun pattern (get_balance, get_phase, get_usage, compose_phases, deposit_poll), but 'phase_resolution_stats' breaks the pattern by lacking a verb, and 'compose_phases' vs 'get_phase' uses different verbs for closely related operations. The naming is still readable and predictable overall.
Eight tools is well-scoped for this server: four handle the paid signal-reading workflow and four handle account/billing support around it. There are no redundant or throwaway tools, and each one earns its place.
The server covers the full workflow: discover what phases exist and pricing (list_phase_meta), get current readings (get_phase/compose_phases), interpret them (phase_resolution_stats), and manage the prepaid account (get_balance, get_usage, get_notifications, deposit_poll). No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.