crypto-mcp
Server Details
Crypto rug/scam-risk scans + wallet snapshots (EVM + Solana), paid per call 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 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one describes the paid API, one scans token rug risk, and one provides wallet portfolio preview. No overlap in functionality.
Names use underscores and are descriptive, but 'paid_api_info' deviates from the 'preview' suffix pattern used by the other two tools. Overall consistent enough.
Only 3 tools is very few for a crypto server that could cover many operations (prices, swaps, etc.). The server feels like a teaser for a paid API rather than a full tool set.
The tools only provide informational previews and API docs. Lacks any actionable operations (e.g., trade, transfer, price fetch). The server's purpose is narrowly defined as a preview layer, which is incomplete for broad crypto use.
Available Tools
3 toolspaid_api_infoAInspect
Machine-readable description of the full paid API (endpoints, price, x402 payment).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a 'description', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or required permissions. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with key information. 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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and what information is returned (endpoints, price, payment). Could mention the return format or structure, but it's sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4. No additional value needed.
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 machine-readable description of the paid API, specifying endpoints, price, and x402 payment. The verb 'description' and resource 'full paid API' are specific and distinct from sibling tools rug_scan_preview and wallet_report_preview.
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 this tool versus alternatives, but the context of siblings being unrelated to paid API info implies this is the sole tool for this purpose. A clear when-to-use statement would improve the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rug_scan_previewAInspect
Free PREVIEW of a memecoin rug/scam-risk scan for a token (EVM chains or Solana).
Returns the overall risk level/score and up to two headline warning flags. The FULL
report (all 30+ flags, taxes, holder concentration, LP lock, authorities, market data)
is available from the paid HTTP endpoint referenced in `full_report`.
chain: e.g. 'base', 'ethereum', 'bsc', 'arbitrum', 'solana'.
address: the token contract / mint address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| address | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior (returns risk level/score and up to two flags) and mentions the paid full report, but does not address error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements.
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 and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then describes output and the paid alternative, and finally explains parameters. Every sentence is necessary and informative.
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 covers return values and parameter details. However, it lacks information about error conditions (e.g., unsupported chain, invalid address) and could be more comprehensive.
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 schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description effectively explains the 'chain' parameter with examples ('base', 'ethereum', etc.) and clarifies that 'address' is the token contract/mint address, adding significant meaning 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 clearly states it is a free preview of a memecoin rug/scam risk scan for tokens on EVM chains or Solana, returning risk level/score and up to two headline warning flags. It is distinct from sibling tools paid_api_info and wallet_report_preview.
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 that this preview tool is suitable for quick risk checks and mentions a paid full report alternative, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other tools or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wallet_report_previewAInspect
Free PREVIEW of a wallet portfolio snapshot for any public address.
Returns total USD value, number of holdings, and the single largest holding. The FULL
itemized holdings breakdown is available from the paid HTTP endpoint in `full_report`.
chain: e.g. 'base', 'ethereum', 'optimism', 'polygon', 'solana'.
address: a public wallet address (read-only; no keys needed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| address | Yes |
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 that the tool is read-only ('no keys needed'), and that it returns only three specific data points. It does not detail rate limits or error handling, but the level of transparency is adequate for a preview tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a first sentence summarizing purpose and output, a second sentence clarifying the paid alternative, and a third paragraph listing parameters with explanations. 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?
For a simple preview tool with two string parameters, the description explains both parameters and the returned data. It does not cover error cases or empty results, but given the preview nature and no output schema, it is reasonably 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?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by providing examples for 'chain' (base, ethereum, optimism, polygon, solana) and clarifying that 'address' is a public wallet address requiring no keys. This adds essential meaning 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 clearly states the tool provides a free preview of a wallet portfolio snapshot for any public address, returns total USD value, number of holdings, and the single largest holding. It distinguishes itself from the paid full report and sibling tools like rug_scan_preview.
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 mentions that the full itemized breakdown is available via a paid HTTP endpoint, indicating when to use this free preview vs. the paid version. It does not explicitly exclude other alternatives but provides context for appropriate use.
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!