Skip to main content
Glama

US Economic, SEC EDGAR & On-Chain Data (x402)

by net.agentfund

Chainlink Oracle Price

onchain_oracle_price
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read any Chainlink price feed directly on-chain — a named pair or a raw feed address.

Calls latestRoundData on the feed contract itself, so there is no price-API vendor, no rate limit, and no key. Includes the feed's last-updated timestamp and its age in seconds, so you can judge staleness yourself rather than trusting an unlabeled number.

Known named pairs on Base: ETH/USD, BTC/USD, USDC/USD. Any other feed address on any supported chain also works.

When to use: getting a specific asset's price without depending on a centralized price API, verifying a feed is fresh before using it, cross-checking a price from another source.

When NOT to use: you need a token that has no Chainlink feed (use onchain_portfolio's covered set, or a DEX quote instead), or historical/point-in-time prices.

Args:

  • pair (string, required): a named pair (e.g. "ETH/USD") or a raw feed contract address (0x...).

  • chain (string, optional, default "base"): base | ethereum | optimism | arbitrum | polygon.

Returns structuredContent: { "chain": "base", "feed": "0x71041dddad3595F9CEd3DcCFBe3D1F4b0a16Bb70", "pair": "ETH/USD", "price": 1877.86, "decimals": 8, "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T12:00:00.000Z", "ageSeconds": 120, "source": "Chainlink on-chain price feed" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pairYesA named pair (e.g. "ETH/USD") or a raw Chainlink feed contract address.
chainNoWhich chain the feed lives on. Defaults to base.base

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by explaining the tool calls latestRoundData on the feed contract itself, which eliminates API vendor/rate limit/key concerns, and it includes staleness metrics (updatedAt, ageSeconds) so the agent can judge data freshness. No contradictions with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every section earns its place: intro, mechanism, named pairs, usage guidance, parameters, return structure. It is front-loaded with purpose and structured into scannable paragraphs. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given there is no output schema, the description provides a detailed return example with field names and types, including staleness measures. It also covers the supported chains and the distinction between named pairs and raw addresses. Limitations (no historical prices) are stated. This is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema descriptions cover both parameters (pair and chain) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples ('ETH/USD', 0x...) and notes that any feed address on supported chains works, but the schema already conveys the core semantics. No additional parameter behavior is introduced beyond what the schema fields express.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination: 'Read any Chainlink price feed directly on-chain'. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like onchain_portfolio and onchain_gas by targeting Chainlink oracle prices specifically, and gives the exact mechanism (latestRoundData on the feed contract).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description has explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It names alternatives (onchain_portfolio or DEX quote when no Chainlink feed exists) and explicitly excludes historical/point-in-time prices. This is exactly the kind of clear guidance an agent needs.

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

All US Economic, SEC EDGAR & On-Chain Data (x402) 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action. The macro_* tools each cover one economic indicator, the edgar_* tools cover different SEC filing types, and the onchain_* tools are split by chain scope (single vs multi), asset type, and operation. Even the two data-cleaning tools are clearly distinct (JSON repair vs table parsing). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a mostly consistent snake_case pattern with domain prefixes: macro_*, edgar_*, onchain_*. The exceptions are bls_cpi (could be macro_cpi) and the utility tools structured_json_repair and tabular_to_json, which break the prefix pattern but are still descriptive and predictable. Overall, the convention is clear with minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

21 tools is in the 'heavy' range (16-25). However, the server spans three distinct domains (US economic data, SEC EDGAR, on-chain data), and each tool serves a unique purpose within its domain. While it feels dense, the breadth is justified by the server's stated multi-domain scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the major needs in each domain: key macro indicators, common EDGAR filings and searches, and core on-chain reads. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no PPI, no historical on-chain balances, no company CIK lookup), but agents can work around these with existing tools or by combining them.

Resources