Vibe Springs
Server Details
Pay-per-use weather, environment, finance, and on-chain intelligence tools for AI agents via x402.
- 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 4.1/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_crypto_prices vs get_crypto_news), but there is some overlap between get_exchange_rates and convert_currency, and between get_forecast and get_weather_history. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still confuse them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., convert_currency, get_forecast, register_watch). There is no deviation or mixing of conventions.
22 tools is above the ideal range but appropriate for a multi-purpose data and monitoring server. Each tool serves a distinct function, and the count reflects the breadth of services offered without being excessive.
The tool set covers major domains (weather, crypto, fiat, DeFi, wallet intel, monitoring, marketplace) reasonably well. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for on-chain actions beyond risk reports), but the surface is comprehensive for its stated purpose.
Available Tools
22 toolsaudit_agent_visibilityAInspect
AEO/GEO Agent Visibility Auditor. Audit any third-party API endpoint for x402 compatibility, schema compliance, robots.txt indexing accessibility, and LLM tool calling clarity. [PAID: $0.2 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target API endpoint URL to check | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the paid nature, the two-step payment process (first call without payment_signature returns requirements), and the checks performed. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens on payment failure.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The payment information is included but could be structured more clearly. Overall efficient with minimal waste.
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, the description should explain return values but does not. It describes what checks are performed but not the format or content of the audit result. The payment workflow is adequately covered, but completeness is lacking for a tool that produces a report.
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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (URL target, optional payment signature with detailed instructions). With 100% schema coverage, the tool description adds no additional param-level meaning, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 identifies the tool as an auditor for agent visibility on third-party API endpoints, listing specific checks (x402 compatibility, schema compliance, etc.). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on data retrieval or monitoring, not auditing.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies auditing any API endpoint, there is no guidance on exclusions or when not to use it. The payment flow is described but not the decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_watchAInspect
Check a watch condition by ID. Evaluates if the condition has been met relative to the caller's previous baseline, updates baseline to current, and sends notifications if triggered. [PAID: $0.008 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The watchId to check | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the baseline, sends notifications if triggered, and requires a payment via x402. This is good transparency for a state-modifying, paid tool, though it could mention idempotency or side effects.
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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence clearly defines the action and effects. The second efficiently explains the payment workflow. Every word 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?
Adequate but incomplete. No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., whether it returns condition status or just acknowledgment). It mentions notifications but not what the API response contains.
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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds significant context for 'payment_signature': explains the two-step payment flow (first call without it returns requirements, then retry with it). This goes beyond the schema description.
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 states 'Check a watch condition by ID', which is a clear verb+resource. It explains the evaluation, baseline update, and notification behavior. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_watches_batch', which is a batch version.
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 detailed payment workflow (first call without signature to get requirements, then retry with signature), which is a usage guideline. But it does not specify when to use this single-check tool versus the batch check tool or other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_watches_batchAInspect
Batch check up to 5 watch conditions concurrently. If individual watches fail or are missing, error objects are returned inline to prevent batch interruption. [PAID: $0.02 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Comma-separated watch IDs to check | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Transparently discloses batch limit of 5, inline error handling to avoid interruption, payment requirement via x402, and the two-step call process for payment signature acquisition.
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 plus a payment note; front-loaded main function, every sentence adds essential information with no waste.
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?
Covers input, error handling, and payment flow. Lacks description of the successful output format, but overall sufficiently complete given no output schema.
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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds the sequential call pattern for payment and the implicit batch size constraint on ids, adding value beyond schema.
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 'Batch check up to 5 watch conditions concurrently', specifying the action and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling 'check_watch' which handles single watches.
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 batching but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the single 'check_watch' sibling; no when-not or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
convert_currencyAInspect
Convert any amount between 30+ fiat currencies with real-time ECB rates. Returns converted amount, rate, and inverse rate. [PAID: $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target currency ISO code (e.g. JPY, EUR) | |
| from | Yes | Source currency ISO code (e.g. GBP, USD) | |
| amount | No | Amount to convert | 1 |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.002 USDC via x402), the two-step call pattern, and the return values. However, it omits details about rate limits or authentication beyond the payment mechanism.
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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief payment note. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.
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?
The description adequately explains the return values (converted amount, rate, inverse rate) and the necessary two-step payment process. However, it does not specify the output format or list supported currencies, leaving minor gaps.
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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context about real-time rates and the payment flow but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema definitions.
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 verb 'Convert' and the resource 'any amount between 30+ fiat currencies', specifying real-time ECB rates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_exchange_rates by focusing on conversion of a specific amount, not just fetching rates.
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 explains the payment flow (first call without signature) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_exchange_rates. It lacks exclusion criteria or context for 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.
get_bazaar_category_trendsAInspect
Fetches historical metrics, active listings share, price distribution, and call volume momentum for a specific Bazaar service tag over a snapshot series. [PAID: $0.05 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Bazaar tag or category name | |
| window | No | Number of snapshot dates to trace (7-30) | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states the call is paid ($0.05 USDC via x402 on Base) and that the first call without payment_signature returns payment requirements, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state if it is read-only or what happens on failure.
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: first clearly states purpose, second provides essential payment workflow. No extraneous information.
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, the description lists what is fetched (metrics, share, distribution, momentum), giving agents a reasonable expectation of the output. Payment details are thorough. Missing explanation of return format or error handling, but still largely complete.
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 100%, so the schema already provides definitions. The description adds context about what the tag represents ('service tag') and what metrics are fetched, but does not deepen semantic understanding beyond the schema definitions.
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 states the tool fetches 'historical metrics, active listings share, price distribution, and call volume momentum for a specific Bazaar service tag' - a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_bazaar_competitors.
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 explicitly explains the two-step payment process: first call without payment_signature returns requirements, then retry with signature. This is important usage guidance, though it does not compare to sibling tools explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_bazaar_competitorsAInspect
Finds the closest competitor listings by tag overlap and semantic token similarity. Returns pricing, calls, and payers for each competitor along with the query resource's market rank. [PAID: $0.1 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max competitors (1-25) | |
| payTo | No | Merchant payTo address to analyze | |
| resource | No | Listing resource URL to analyze | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses the payment requirement ($0.1 USDC per call via x402) and explains the two-step process: first call without payment_signature returns payment requirements, then retry with signed token. Given no annotations, this is exceptional 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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core functionality, then adds return details, then payment instructions. 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?
The description covers purpose, behavior, and payment workflow. However, it lacks an output schema and does not detail the exact structure of the response, which may be needed for an AI agent to parse results. Still, it is fairly complete given the tool's complexity.
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 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the payment_signature workflow beyond the schema description. It clarifies the optional two-call pattern, which is not evident from the schema alone.
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 verb 'Finds the closest competitor listings' and the method 'by tag overlap and semantic token similarity'. It also specifies the output includes 'pricing, calls, and payers' and 'market rank'. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_bazaar_category_trends or get_market_pulse.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With 19 sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing. It only describes what the tool does, not when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_crypto_newsAInspect
Aggregated real-time cryptocurrency news feed with lexicon-based sentiment analysis and cross-outlet story clustering. Filters by topic, time-range, and sentiment bands. [PAID: $0.008 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max articles (1-50) | |
| since | No | ISO timestamp or shorthand 1h, 6h, 24h | |
| topic | No | Comma-separated keywords (e.g. bitcoin,ethereum) | |
| maxSentiment | No | Max sentiment score (-1 to 1) | |
| minSentiment | No | Min sentiment score (-1 to 1) | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature, the requirement to first call without signature to get payment requirements, and the sentiment analysis/clustering features. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but the payment flow is well explained.
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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a payment note. Every sentence is necessary and adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filters and payment details.
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?
The description covers purpose, filtering, and payment flow. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from briefly mentioning what the response contains (e.g., articles with sentiment scores, clusters). Nevertheless, it is largely complete for a non-complex tool.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning to the parameters beyond summarizing the filter options. The sentiment range and topic parameters are already well described in the schema.
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's purpose: aggregated real-time cryptocurrency news with sentiment analysis and clustering. It specifies filtering options and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices, making it unambiguous.
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 explains the payment flow and filtering capabilities, giving clear context on how to use the tool (call without payment_signature first). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternative tools for news gathering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_crypto_pricesAInspect
Live cryptocurrency prices, market caps, volume, and percentage changes for top tokens. Supports custom coin lists and multiple quote currencies. [PAID: $0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | No | Quote currency: usd, eur, gbp, jpy, btc, eth | usd |
| ids | No | Comma-separated CoinGecko IDs (e.g. bitcoin,ethereum). Omit for top coins. | |
| limit | No | Max results | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the paid nature ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base) and explains the two-step call process: first call without payment_signature returns requirements, second call with signed token. However, it does not mention rate limits or error handling behavior, which are relevant.
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: two short sentences plus a bracketed note. All information is directly relevant and front-loaded. No unnecessary 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 no output schema, the description adequately indicates the type of data returned (prices, market caps, volume, percentage changes). It explains the payment mechanism and customizations. However, it does not clarify the response format or error scenarios, which could be gaps.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds general context (supports custom lists, quote currencies) but does not significantly enhance understanding of each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The payment_signature explanation is detailed but that parameter is also described in the schema.
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 live cryptocurrency prices, market caps, volume, and percentage changes. It mentions support for custom coin lists and multiple quote currencies, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_news or get_exchange_rates.
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 obtaining cryptocurrency data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_crypto_news or get_exchange_rates. It lacks clear contextual boundaries or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_defi_yieldsAInspect
Premium cross-protocol DeFi yield aggregator and scanner powered by DefiLlama. Scans Aave, Compound, Uniswap, Morpho, and 100+ protocols for the best APY opportunities across chains. Filter by token, chain, and minimum TVL. [PAID: $0.03 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort by: apy, tvl, or protocol | apy |
| chain | No | Filter by chain: base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism. Omit for all chains. | |
| limit | No | Max results | |
| token | No | Filter by token symbol (e.g. USDC, ETH, WBTC) | USDC |
| min_tvl | No | Minimum TVL in USD | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description covers behavior well, including the paid nature, x402 protocol, and the two-step payment flow. However, it does not describe rate limits, failure handling, or output structure.
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 concise, with two sentences plus a note on payment. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and essential details, with no wasted 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?
The description lacks details about the output format (what is returned beyond 'best APY opportunities') and does not explain potential error states. Given no output schema, this is a notable gap.
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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the payment_signature parameter in detail and how the tool interacts with the payment system, beyond what the schema provides.
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 cross-protocol DeFi yield aggregator and scanner powered by DefiLlama, listing specific protocols and filter options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being specifically for yield scanning across chains.
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 finding best APY opportunities and includes payment requirements, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives from the sibling list. For a paid tool, this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_delay_riskAInspect
Outdoor delay & disruption risk score. Combines 7-day precipitation history, NRCS soil characteristics (drainage class, hydrologic group), ground-drying dynamics, temperature, freeze/thaw state, and wind forecast into a single 0–100 disruption risk score with per-day breakdown and contributing factors. Purpose-built for scheduling decisions (construction ground work, outdoor events, logistics, drone flights). Select an activity profile — ground_work | outdoor_event | logistics | aerial — to weight factors. US coverage only. [PAID: $0.05 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude of the site (US coverage) | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude (US coverage) | |
| days | No | Forecast window in days | |
| soil | No | Soil type if known: clay | silt | sand | rock | mixed | mixed |
| profile | No | Activity profile: ground_work | outdoor_event | logistics | aerial | ground_work |
| exposure | No | Sun exposure: open | shaded | open |
| gradient | No | Site slope: flat | moderate | steep | moderate |
| drainageClass | No | NRCS drainage class | |
| hydrologicGroup | No | NRCS hydrologic soil group (A-D, or dual) | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.05 per call) and the x402 payment process. It explains the factors combined (precipitation, soil, temperature, etc.) and that output includes per-day breakdown and contributing factors. No mention of rate limits or side effects, but overall good 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?
Description is compact and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then lists factors, use cases, and payment info. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output format (0-100 score, per-day breakdown, factors) and how inputs influence results. It covers the key aspects, though a more explicit output schema description would be helpful.
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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context by explaining how the tool uses parameters (e.g., activity profile weights factors), but does not provide additional detail for individual parameters beyond what's in the schema.
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?
Description clearly states it calculates a disruption risk score combining multiple factors into a 0-100 score with per-day breakdown. It specifies use cases (construction, events, logistics, drone flights) and geographic scope (US only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_delay_risk_demo.
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?
Description explains it is purpose-built for scheduling decisions and lists activity profiles. It notes US coverage and payment requirements. However, it does not explicitly compare to the demo sibling tool (get_delay_risk_demo) or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_delay_risk_demoAInspect
Demo: weather-driven delay-risk score for 5 fixed US locations. Same schema as the full endpoint but cheaper. Locations span clay, wet coast, semi-arid, fast-drain, and silt. [PAID: $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| soil | No | Soil type override | |
| profile | No | Activity profile | ground_work |
| location | No | Demo location key: nova | houston | seattle | denver | miami | nova |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the x402 payment mechanism on Base, cost, and first-call requirements. Does not mention idempotency or side effects, but for a demo query tool this is adequate.
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 sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, cost, first-call behavior. No wasted 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?
No output schema, so return format of delay-risk score is unspecified. However, as a demo that mirrors full endpoint, the output can be inferred. Could mention a link or example output for 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?
All 4 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). Description adds context: soil override, activity profile with default, demo location keys with list, and detailed payment_signature instructions. Adds significant value beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it's a demo for weather-driven delay-risk score for 5 fixed US locations, and mentions it's cheaper than the full endpoint, distinguishing it from the sibling get_delay_risk tool.
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?
Describes demo purpose and cheaper cost, and explains first-call behavior for payment. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over get_delay_risk (e.g., for testing vs production).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_exchange_ratesBInspect
Current and historical foreign exchange rates from the European Central Bank. 30+ currencies supported. [PAID: $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Comma-separated target currencies. Omit for all. | |
| base | No | Base currency ISO code (e.g. USD, EUR, GBP) | USD |
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD for historical rate | latest |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the pay-per-use behavior (x402 payment on Base) and the two-step call process. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, caching, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not 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?
Two sentences efficiently convey the core purpose and critical payment behavior with no fluff. The most important information is front-loaded.
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?
Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description omits details about the return format (e.g., JSON structure, currency mapping, error handling). The payment flow is explained, but historical date validation is left to the schema. For a financial data tool, more contextual completeness is needed.
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 100% description coverage, already explaining each parameter ('to', 'base', 'date', 'payment_signature'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves current and historical foreign exchange rates from the European Central Bank, supporting 30+ currencies. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'convert_currency' tool, which likely performs conversions rather than providing rate listings.
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 explains payment mechanics but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'convert_currency' or other financial data tools. It does not specify ideal 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.
get_forecastAInspect
Up to 16-day weather forecast for any location. Temperature, precipitation probability, wind, UV index. [PAID: $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Forecast days | |
| location | Yes | City name or region | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the x402 payment mechanism in detail, including the process of calling without signature first to receive requirements, then signing and retrying. This adds value beyond the schema, especially given no annotations.
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 sentences: first states core functionality, second explains payment process. No fluff, front-loaded with important info.
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, but description lists returned data points (temperature, precipitation, wind, UV index). Payment process is thorough. Lacks output structure but sufficient for typical use.
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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra beyond the schema (mostly payment flow), so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it provides up to 16-day weather forecast for any location, listing specific data points (temperature, precipitation probability, wind, UV index). It is distinct from siblings like get_weather_history.
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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. The payment process is explained but not comparative usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_gas_pricesAInspect
Real-time gas price oracle for Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Optimism. Returns slow/standard/fast fee tiers, estimated costs for common operations, and network congestion status. [PAID: $0.001 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Network: base, ethereum, arbitrum, or optimism | base |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
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 discloses that the call is paid ($0.001 USDC per call via x402) and explains the two-step protocol (first call returns payment requirements, second call includes signature). This goes beyond basic functionality, though it could add failure modes or rate limits.
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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads purpose and output, the second covers critical payment behavior. Every word 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?
Given zero required parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a simple oracle tool. It covers the payment nuance and the data returned (fee tiers, costs, congestion). Minor gap: does not specify output structure, but acceptable for a straightforward value-returning tool.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the payment workflow for the 'payment_signature' parameter (first call without it, then sign and retry). This is meaningful context beyond the schema.
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 uses specific verbs ('returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('real-time gas price oracle') and scope ('Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Optimism'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices and get_defi_yields by focusing specifically on gas prices.
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 explains when to use the tool (to get gas prices) and provides the payment workflow (call without signature first). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context makes it clear that this is the sole gas price tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_market_pulseAInspect
Real-time market snapshot in one call: top crypto prices (CoinGecko), major FX rates (ECB), Base gas fees, and top USDC DeFi yields (DefiLlama). All four sources fetched in parallel. [PAID: $0.02 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | Base fiat currency for FX rates | USD |
| cryptos | No | Comma-separated CoinGecko token IDs (default: top 10 by market cap) | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses real-time, parallel fetching, the paid nature ($0.02 per call via x402), and the requirement of an initial call to get payment requirements. It lacks details on caching, rate limits, or error handling but covers the essential payment mechanism.
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?
Description is concise, front-loads the purpose and sources, and includes necessary payment details in a single paragraph. Every sentence adds value without 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?
Given no output schema, description covers what data is included (top crypto prices, major FX rates, etc.) but could specify the number of items or response format. It adequately explains the payment flow and parallel execution. Slightly vague on exact output structure.
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 descriptions already cover parameters, but description adds critical context for payment_signature, explaining the two-step flow. This significantly aids understanding beyond the schema. For base and cryptos, schema is already comprehensive.
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?
Description clearly states 'Real-time market snapshot in one call' and enumerates the four data sources (crypto prices, FX rates, gas fees, DeFi yields). It distinguishes from sibling tools that fetch individual data types.
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?
Description implies usage as a consolidated alternative to multiple separate calls. It explains the payment flow for the first call. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual data tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_risk_reportAInspect
Comprehensive on-chain due-diligence report. Combines 6+ risk signals (known-risky address, wallet age, contract bytecode, proxy detection, selfdestruct patterns) with full wallet profiling and token holdings. [PAID: $0.03 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Target chain: base, ethereum, or sepolia | base |
| address | Yes | Ethereum address to analyze (0x-prefixed, 42 chars) | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses paid nature ($0.03 USDC per call via x402) and the two-call workflow (first without payment_signature to get requirements, then retry with signature). No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and meets it well.
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 efficient sentences: first for purpose and features, second for payment. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted 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?
Covers main purpose and payment, but lacks output schema description. Given no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the return format (e.g., score, report object). Otherwise adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The description adds critical context on the payment_signature workflow, explaining how to obtain and use it, which is not in the schema.
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 generates an on-chain due-diligence report combining 6+ risk signals with wallet profiling and token holdings. This specific verb+resource differentiates it from sibling tools like news, prices, or yields.
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 siblings or alternatives. The description only explains payment flow, not when a risk report is appropriate compared to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_travel_briefAInspect
Complete destination intelligence in one call. Geocodes any city then fetches 7-day weather forecast, air quality index, upcoming public holidays, and local currency FX rates — all in parallel. [PAID: $0.02 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code for holidays (auto-detected if omitted) | |
| currency | No | Local currency ISO code for FX rates | USD |
| location | Yes | City or place name (e.g. Paris, Tokyo, New York) | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.02 USDC via x402), the two-step payment flow (first call returns requirements, second with signature), and parallel fetching of all data. This sufficiently informs the agent about cost, authorization, and execution model, though it omits failure behaviors (e.g., invalid location).
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 plus a brief payment note. Every statement serves a purpose: capability summary, parallel execution, and payment details. No wasted words or 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?
Given the moderate complexity (multiple data sources, paid API), the description clearly outlines what the tool returns and the payment flow. While an output schema is missing, listing the data types (geocoding, weather, holidays, FX) provides sufficient context for an agent to judge applicability. Minor gap: no mention of response format or error handling.
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 100% with adequate descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds context by listing the fetched data types (weather, etc.) but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. The payment_signature workflow is explained in the schema, not the description, so no extra value here.
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?
Description clearly states it provides a comprehensive destination intelligence bundle: geocoding, 7-day weather, air quality, holidays, and FX rates. The verb 'get' and resource 'travel_brief' are specific, and the composite nature distinguishes it from sibling tools that offer individual data points (get_forecast, get_exchange_rates).
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 frames the tool as a one-call solution for multiple destination data, implying its use when all these data are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it (e.g., if only weather is needed, use get_forecast) or mention any prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_wallet_intelAInspect
Premium wallet intelligence and profiling for Base, Ethereum, and Sepolia. Checks address profile, EOA vs smart contract, ERC-20 token balances (USDC, USDT, WETH, LINK, etc.), total transaction counts, activity classification, and behavior tags (whale, active-trader, stablecoin-holder). [PAID: $0.02 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Network: ethereum, base, or sepolia | base |
| address | Yes | Ethereum address (0x...) | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses paid nature ($0.02 per call), required payment flow, and what first call returns. Could add more on error handling or rate limits, but current detail is good.
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 sentences plus a clear, structured payment instruction. Front-loaded with purpose and capabilities. Every sentence adds value; no wasted 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 no output schema, description adequately covers expected return (profile info, payment requirements on first call). Could list exact output fields, but the list of checks (balances, classification, tags) gives good expectation. Missing details on data format is acceptable.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds significantly beyond schema: explains payment flow in detail (EIP-712 signing, base64 token) and clarifies chain options. Provides context that reduces ambiguity.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('get') and resource ('wallet intel and profiling'). Lists specific chains (Base, Ethereum, Sepolia) and details of what it checks (address type, token balances, transaction counts, etc.). Distinct from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices or get_gas_prices.
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 describes the payment process: call without payment_signature to get requirements, then sign and retry. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the nature of the tool (premium wallet intel) implies appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_weather_historyAInspect
Historical daily weather for any location worldwide. Temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and conditions. [PAID: $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | End date YYYY-MM-DD (max 90 days range, must be yesterday or earlier) | |
| location | Yes | City name or region | |
| start_date | Yes | Start date YYYY-MM-DD | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
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 discloses the payment requirement, first-call behavior (returns payment requirements), and date constraints (max 90 days, must be yesterday or earlier). This is thorough for a paid 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?
Two sentences, no wordiness. Front-loaded with core function, then payment info. 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?
No output schema, but description lists data types returned (temperature, precipitation, wind speed, conditions). Payment flow is fully explained. Could mention pagination or response format but adequate for a straightforward data tool.
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 100%, but the description adds meaning: it explains the payment_signature parameter's role and summarizes the core parameters with constraints (end_date must be yesterday or earlier, max 90 days range).
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 'Historical daily weather for any location worldwide' with specific data types (temperature, precipitation, wind speed, conditions). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_forecast (future) and other unrelated tools.
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 explains the paid nature, payment mechanism via x402 on Base, and the two-step call process (first without payment_signature to get requirements, then retry with signature). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives but usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
healthAInspect
Service health, upstream data-source probes, facilitator reachability, and 7-day paid-call reliability (p95 latency, paid-but-failed rate) for Vibe Springs. [FREE]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description details what metrics are returned (health, probes, reachability, reliability) without needing annotations. It is a read-only health check with no side effects mentioned.
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?
A single, dense sentence that effectively summarizes the tool's outputs. It is concise but could benefit from minor restructuring for readability.
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 simple nature of a health check with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects (probes, reliability, free). It is sufficiently complete.
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?
No parameters exist, so the schema covers 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given the absence of 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 identifies the tool as providing service health, upstream probes, reachability, and reliability metrics for Vibe Springs. It distinguishes from siblings which focus on other domains like crypto, currency, or travel.
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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, though the free health check nature is implied. Users could infer it for pre-call checks, but no direct exclusions or sibling comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
register_watchAInspect
Register a watch condition for real-time monitoring of prices, gas, weather, wallet balances/txs, or custom API endpoints. Returns watchId and checkEndpoint URL. [PAID: $0.01 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | price | gas | weather | wallet | endpoint | |
| notify | No | { email?: string } | |
| target | Yes | Symbol (e.g. BTC-USD), chain (base), location (London), address, or URL | |
| condition | Yes | { op: gt|lt|crosses|changes, field: string, value?: number } | |
| authorizedPayers | No | Array of additional addresses allowed to check this watch | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses paid nature, cost, and payment process, and mentions return values. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; missing details on potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing watches) and rate limits.
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 sentences with no fluff. Purpose and key constraint (payment requirement) are front-loaded. 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 6 params (some nested) and no output schema, description covers main purpose, return values (watchId, checkEndpoint URL), and payment flow. Lacks detail on condition structure but schema partially compensates.
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 100%, so schema already documents all parameters. Description adds no extra parameter details beyond listing kinds; baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'register' and resource 'watch condition', lists supported kinds (prices, gas, weather, wallet, endpoint), and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_watch, check_watches_batch which are for querying existing watches.
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?
Provides context for real-time monitoring and explicit payment flow instructions (call without payment_signature first). Does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the sibling tools are distinct enough to avoid confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_servicesAInspect
Search the full Vibe Springs catalog of 49 pay-per-use x402 endpoints by keyword, category, or max price. Returns endpoint URLs, prices, params, and example requests. [FREE]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Keyword query, e.g. "weather", "wallet", "pdf" | |
| category | No | Category filter, e.g. "data/weather", "market-intelligence" | |
| max_price | No | Only services at or below this USDC price |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only search, returns specific data, and is labeled '[FREE]', indicating no cost. It does not mention side effects, which are absent, so transparency is good.
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 that front-load the action and include both functionality and return details. No extraneous information.
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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (URLs, prices, params, example requests). The FREE tag adds useful context. It is complete given the complexity.
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 100%, so the description adds marginal value beyond the schema. It reiterates the three filter dimensions (keyword, category, max price) but does not provide additional parameter semantics or behavior.
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 searches a specific catalog of 49 endpoints with filters for keyword, category, or max price, and lists what is returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mostly specific data retrieval endpoints.
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 specifies search filters (keyword, category, max price) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, the sibling list makes it clear that this is the general search tool, and the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.
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!