Feegate AI Agent data marketplace catalog & platform metrics

protocol-profile.protocol_dossier

Ask "give me a dossier on this protocol" — full: TVL across five windows, chain split, fees, hack history. ｜完整档案：TVL 五个时间窗对比、各链分布与子口径、费用收入、被黑历史明细、母协议/分叉来源/预言机/上线时间/推特，加风险标记。参数同左。

[zh] 供应方资产「协议多维画像（TVL/费用/被黑史）」按次计费 $0.02 USDC（或等值积分）。入参：protocol、days。 [en] Vendor asset "协议多维画像（TVL/费用/被黑史）". Paid per call: $0.02 USDC (or prepaid credits). Args: protocol, days. 付款/支付头在 MCP 请求头里带（X-Payment / X-Payment-Tx / Authorization: Bearer fg_…），不要放进参数。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "protocol": "<protocol>"
    },
    "name": "protocol-profile.protocol_dossier"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`protocol`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is paid per call ($0.02 USDC/credits) and that payment/auth headers belong in the MCP request headers, not parameters. However, it does not state read-only behavior explicitly, data freshness, latency, rate limits, or error behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The useful output description is followed by duplicated Chinese and English sections, with payment and argument details repeated. Phrases like '参数同左' are confusing, and the multilingual duplication makes it less front-loaded and harder to scan.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately lists the dossier contents and payment requirements. It falls short on parameter semantics and usage guidance, leaving an agent unable to confidently interpret 'days' or choose this over protocol-card.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It only repeats 'Args: protocol, days' without explaining expected protocol format, what days controls, its default, or its valid range.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a full protocol dossier and lists specific contents: TVL across five windows, chain split, fees, hack history, parent/fork origin, oracle, launch time, Twitter, and risk flags. It implies differentiation from a lighter sibling via 'full,' though it does not explicitly name protocol-card.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives an example user utterance ('give me a dossier on this protocol') but does not explain when to use this tool versus protocol-profile.protocol_card or other protocol/revenue tools. There are no exclusions or decision criteria.

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

All Feegate AI Agent data marketplace catalog & platform metrics tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.