Proodos
Server Details
Financial sentiment analysis and on-chain token bytecode audits. Pay-per-use via x402 protocol ($0.01 Base USDC).
- 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 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools address entirely different domains: sentiment analysis of text versus on-chain token analysis. There is zero overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names use underscore separation and are clear, but one follows verb_noun (analyze_sentiment) and the other noun_noun (token_report), a minor inconsistency.
With only two tools, the server feels very thin for its apparent scope of financial/token analysis. Most useful workflows would require additional tools.
The two tools are disjoint and each covers a narrow function. There are obvious gaps: no market data, no price fetching, no portfolio tools, etc., leaving the surface incomplete for any coherent purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolsanalyze_sentimentBInspect
Analyze financial sentiment of text. Returns score 0-1 (bearish-bullish).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| ticker | No | BTC |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses output range and interpretation (0-1 bearish-bullish) but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond annotations. With no annotations, description partially covers 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads purpose and output.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with output schema, but missing explanation of ticker parameter and its effect. Could be more complete for financial context.
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?
Does not describe the 'ticker' parameter at all. Only mentions 'text' implicitly. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but fails to add meaning for the optional parameter.
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?
Clearly states the action 'analyze' and the resource 'financial sentiment of text'. Distinguishes from sibling token_report, which likely deals with token data.
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 (sibling token_report) or when not to use. Implies usage only through the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
token_reportCInspect
On-chain token bytecode analysis with risk indicators. Not KYT or compliance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| contract_address | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does but not side effects, permissions needed, or whether it is read-only or destructive. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
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 short (one sentence plus a negation), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the core purpose but omits parameter guidance and behavioral context.
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 an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks information about supported chains, what risk indicators are, and how the output is structured. This leaves the agent underinformed for selecting and using the tool 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of the parameters (chain and contract_address). The agent has no guidance on valid values for chain (no enum) or the format of contract_address, making proper invocation difficult.
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 performs 'on-chain token bytecode analysis with risk indicators'. It distinguishes itself from KYT and compliance tools, and implicitly from the sibling 'analyze_sentiment' by focusing on bytecode rather than sentiment. However, 'risk indicators' is vague and could be more specific.
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 includes a negative guideline ('Not KYT or compliance'), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its sibling 'analyze_sentiment', nor does it provide positive use cases or prerequisites.
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!