agentfeeds.jp
Server Details
Japan regulatory, sanctions & DEX market data for AI agents via x402 (USDC on Base).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
Each tool targets a distinct domain: product catalog, DEX spread anomalies, DEX spread summary, terms, regulatory events, and sanctions screening. No overlapping functionality.
Mostly snake_case with descriptive names. 'get_terms' follows verb_noun, others like 'dex_spread_anomalies' use noun_noun. Minor inconsistency but pattern is clear.
Six tools is well-scoped for a specialized data provider covering market data, regulatory events, and sanctions screening. No redundancy.
Covers core offerings: catalog, DEX analytics, regulatory events, and sanctions. Missing historical data queries or bulk endpoints, but the set is reasonably complete for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
6 toolscatalogAInspect
Free: machine-readable product catalog of agentfeeds.jp (Japan regulatory & market data for AI agents). Factual data only; not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only includes a disclaimer ('Factual data only; not investment advice') and does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, caching, or data freshness. Since no annotations are provided, the description should carry the full weight of behavioral transparency.
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 concise with two sentences. However, it leads with 'Free:' instead of the core purpose, which slightly reduces front-loaded clarity. Still, every sentence adds value.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the source and nature of the data. However, it could mention the output format or how to use the catalog entries, which would improve completeness.
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 no parameter explanation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics because there are none, earning a baseline score of 4 per the rules.
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 it is a machine-readable product catalog of agentfeeds.jp, providing Japan regulatory and market data for AI agents. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific queries (spread anomalies, terms, events, sanctions) by being a broad catalog resource.
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?
The description implies the tool is for browsing available data products, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_terms or reg_events. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
dex_spread_anomaliesCInspect
Paid ($0.005/call): DEX spread anomaly events (1-min |spread| above trailing 30-day p99). Descriptive statistics only; not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pair | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the tool is paid, returns descriptive statistics only, and is not investment advice. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no anomalies exist.
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?
Single sentence conveys purpose, cost, and caveat. Could be slightly restructured for clarity, but no superfluous words.
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?
Given 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify what the output contains, parameter formats, or required inputs for the tool to work.
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 description coverage is 0%; none of the three parameters (pair, limit, since) are explained in either schema or description. The agent has no clue about valid pair format, limit default, or since timestamp format.
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 it provides DEX spread anomaly events, defined as when 1-min spread exceeds trailing 30-day p99. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'dex_spread_summary' by focusing on anomalies rather than summaries, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.
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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'dex_spread_summary' or 'get_terms'. The mention of cost ($0.005/call) is the only usage hint, but not helpful for selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
dex_spread_summaryBInspect
Paid ($0.002/call): 1-minute cross-venue DEX spread statistics (WETH/USDC on Base, SOL/USDC via Jupiter). Descriptive statistics only; not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pair | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses cost ($0.002/call) and states the data is descriptive only, not investment advice. However, it does not explain behavior like rate limits, error handling, or what happens with parameter bounds.
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 a single sentence that conveys key points (paid, statistics, pairs, caveat). It is concise and front-loaded, though additional structure (e.g., explaining parameters) would improve usability without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. It provides general purpose but lacks detail on output format, parameter usage, and behavioral expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 0% and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'since' parameters. It only hints at 'pair' by listing example pairs. This leaves the agent with minimal understanding of how to use the parameters.
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 provides 1-minute cross-venue DEX spread statistics for specific pairs (WETH/USDC on Base, SOL/USDC via Jupiter). It distinguishes from siblings like dex_spread_anomalies (anomalies) and catalog (listing).
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?
The description implies usage for descriptive statistics and includes a disclaimer and cost, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like dex_spread_anomalies or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_termsBInspect
Free: license terms and disclaimer for agentfeeds.jp data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adequately implies a read operation but does not explicitly state idempotency, authentication needs, or error behavior. For a simple zero-parameter tool, this is acceptable but could be more explicit.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It hints at the content but fails to specify the output format (e.g., plain text or JSON). More detail would improve completeness without much added length.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description need not add meaning beyond the schema, and it provides a baseline score of 4.
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 that the tool provides 'license terms and disclaimer for agentfeeds.jp data,' which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch.'
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites. The description does not mention that it may be needed before other tools or that it is a safe read operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reg_eventsCInspect
Paid ($0.01/call): Japan digital & financial regulatory events (crypto, AML/sanctions, tax, AI) in English, human-reviewed. Factual data; not investment or legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| category | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the call is paid at $0.01 and includes a disclaimer, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.
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 a single sentence plus a disclaimer, which is concise but could be better structured, e.g., separating the paid info, scope, and disclaimer.
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?
Given no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or how to interpret the data beyond being factual.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, since, category). The context of regulatory events helps slightly, but agents have no explicit guidance on parameter usage.
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 provides Japan digital & financial regulatory events with specific categories (crypto, AML/sanctions, tax, AI). However, it lacks a verb like 'list' or 'get', making it slightly less direct.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The siblings do not appear related, but the description does not specify appropriate use cases or exclude inappropriate ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sanctions_checkAInspect
Paid ($0.002/call): screen a crypto address against Japan MOF asset-freeze sanctions designations. Factual screening data; not legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Missing annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.002/call) and that it provides factual screening data (not legal advice). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication, or what happens on match/no match. Still, key behavioral traits are covered.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus brief parenthetical and note. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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?
No output schema, yet the description does not explain the return format or what the tool outputs (e.g., match details vs boolean). For a single-parameter tool, missing output information leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only mentions 'a crypto address' for the address parameter, adding no further semantics about format, network, or validation beyond the schema pattern. Minimal added value.
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 screens a crypto address against Japan MOF asset-freeze sanctions designations, with a specific verb 'screen' and resource 'crypto address against sanctions designations'. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion.
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?
The description implies use for checking Japan MOF sanctions but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor provides any when-not or alternative tool guidance. Given the specific purpose, it's adequate but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!