Skip to main content
Glama

Concierge Intel

by xyz.conc-exe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

intel_whales

intel-whales — $0.02 USDC/USDG/USDT x402 (or TCX credits). POST https://conc-exe.xyz/api/concierge-intel-whales. Default body: {"symbols":["BTC","ETH","SOL"]}. Unpaid calls return live PAYMENT-REQUIRED accepts (Solana/Base/Arbitrum USDC · Robinhood USDG · BNB USDT/USDC Permit2).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoJSON POST body for the intel/security route
agentIdNoOptional Concierge agent id (agt_…)
creditsWalletNoSolana wallet for TCX prepaid credits (x-tcx-credits-wallet)
paymentSignatureNoBase64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE after x402 settlement. Omit to receive a structured payment challenge (or settle via creditsWallet / SOON holder headers).
soonHolderWalletNoSolana wallet for SOON/TCX holder free tier (X-Soon-Holder-Wallet)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Concierge agent id (agt_…)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"JSON POST body"New value: +"JSON POST body for the intel/security route"
    • addedInput schema / properties / creditsWallet
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Solana wallet for TCX prepaid credits (x-tcx-credits-wallet)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / paymentSignature / description
      Previous value: -"Base64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header after x402 settlement"New value: +"Base64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE after x402 settlement. Omit to receive a structured payment challenge (or settle via creditsWallet / SOON holder headers)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / soonHolderWallet
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Solana wallet for SOON/TCX holder free tier (X-Soon-Holder-Wallet)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses payment-related behavior, including the x402 settlement flow, credit alternatives, and the fact that unpaid calls receive a PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge. However, it does not explain what happens after payment or what data is returned, so behavior is only partially transparent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is compact but packs pricing, endpoint, default body, and payment alternatives into a single unstructured paragraph. Information is not logically separated, making it harder to parse for an automated agent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool involves a payment flow and optional authentication headers, but the description omits the expected output, error scenarios, and how the payment challenge should be handled. Without an output schema or examples, the agent lacks critical context to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All parameters have schema descriptions, but several are generic (e.g., body is described only as 'JSON POST body for the intel/security route') and the semantics of 'symbols' are not explained. Payment-related parameters have clearer meaning but the overall parameter purpose remains underspecified.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description does not explicitly state what the tool does; 'intel-whales' implies whale-related intelligence but the text focuses on pricing, endpoint, and payment mechanics. It lacks a clear verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and does not describe the actual returned intelligence.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to sibling tools such as intel_macro, intel_wallet, or intel_listing. The description only covers payment details and a default body, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool name.

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

All Concierge Intel toolsInspect
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.

Resources