Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
jun85664396

Pump Fun Data MCP Server

by jun85664396
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

ポンプファンデータMCPサーバー

鍛冶屋のバッジ

Pump.fun からコインデータを効率的に取得して管理します。

Pump.fun コインのデータ取得機能を提供するモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバー。

**注:**これは非公式の API であり、Pump.fun と提携していません。

特徴

  • 注目のコインのリストを取得する

  • 並べ替えや順序付けのオプションを使用してコインのリストを取得します

  • 特定のコインの詳細情報を取得する

Related MCP server: memecoin-radar-mcp

インストール

Smithery経由でインストール

Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用のpump-fun-data-mcp自動的にインストールするには:

npx -y @smithery/cli@latest install @jun85664396/pump-fun-data-mcp --client claude

手動インストール

MCP 構成に以下を追加します:

    "pump-fun-data": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "github:jun85664396/pump-fun-data-mcp"]
    }

Docker経由でインストール

Docker イメージをビルドします。

docker build -t mcp/pump-fun-data -f Dockerfile .

Docker で実行:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pump-fun-data": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "-i", "--rm", "--init", "-e", "DOCKER_CONTAINER=true", "mcp/pump-fun-data"]
    }
  }
}

APIメソッド

1. 注目のコインを入手する

注目のコインのリストを取得します。

リクエストパラメータ:

パラメータ

タイプ

説明

デフォルト

オフセット

番号

開始オフセット

0

制限

番号

返却するコインの枚数

24

NSFWを含む

ブール値

NSFWコインを含める

真実

リクエスト例:

{
    "name": "get_featured_coins",
    "inputSchema": {
        "offset": 0,
        "limit": 24,
        "includeNsfw": true
    }
}

2. コインを獲得する

並べ替えや順序付けのオプションを使用してコインのリストを取得します。

リクエストパラメータ:

パラメータ

タイプ

説明

デフォルト

オフセット

番号

開始オフセット

0

制限

番号

返却するコインの枚数

24

選別

弦

並べ替えの基準となるフィールド ( market_cap 、 last_trade_timestamp 、 created_timestamp 、 last_reply )

market_cap

NSFWを含む

ブール値

NSFWコインを含める

真実

注文

弦

並べ替えの順序（ ASC 、 DESC ）

DESC

リクエスト例:

{
    "name": "get_coins",
    "inputSchema": {
        "offset": 0,
        "limit": 24,
        "sort": "market_cap",
        "includeNsfw": true,
        "order": "DESC"
    }
}

3. コイン情報を取得する

特定のコインに関する詳細情報を取得します。

リクエストパラメータ:

パラメータ

タイプ

説明

必須

ミントID

弦

ミントID（コインアドレス）

はい

リクエスト例:

{
    "name": "get_coin_info",
    "inputSchema": {
        "mintId": "some-mint-id"
    }
}

ライセンス

このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています。

Available Tools

3 tools
get_coin_infoC

Get information about a coin

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintIdYesThe mint id of the coin(coin address)

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get information') without detailing traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get information about a coin') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for full clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information' is returned (e.g., price, metadata), potential errors, or how it differs from siblings, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'mintId' documented as 'The mint id of the coin (coin address)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose ('Get information about a coin') with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('coin'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_coins' (likely lists multiple coins) or 'get_featured_coins' (likely highlights specific coins), missing differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_coins' or 'get_featured_coins', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

get_coinsC

Get a list of coins

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNoThe offset to start from (default: 0)
limitNoThe number of coins to return (default: 24)
sortNoThe field to sort by (market_cap, last_trade_timestamp, created_timestamp, last_reply)market_cap
includeNsfwNoInclude NSFW coins (default: true)
orderNoThe order to sort by (ASC, DESC)DESC

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid parameters. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for proper tool invocation. For a tool with this complexity, the description should do more to guide the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a list operation. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get a list of coins' clearly states the action (get) and resource (coins), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_coin_info (single coin) or get_featured_coins (filtered subset). It lacks specificity about what kind of list this returns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_coin_info or get_featured_coins. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updates
    • First observedget_coin_info
    • First observedget_coins
    • First observedget_featured_coins
Deploy Server
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

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation3/5

The tools have some overlap in purpose, as both get_coins and get_featured_coins retrieve lists of coins, which could cause confusion about when to use each. However, get_coin_info is clearly distinct for retrieving detailed information about a specific coin, and the descriptions help differentiate the list tools by indicating one is for general coins and the other for featured ones.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' as the prefix and snake_case throughout (e.g., get_coin_info, get_coins, get_featured_coins). There are no deviations or mixed conventions, making the naming predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With only 3 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a data server, as it lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting coins, which are typical for managing data. This minimal set may limit agent functionality and suggests an incomplete surface for the domain.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for a data server, covering only read operations (get) with no ability to create, update, or delete coins. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform full data management workflows, such as adding new coins or modifying existing ones.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches