Skip to main content
Glama
BitwaveCorp

Price Service MCP

by BitwaveCorp
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: get_price retrieves cryptocurrency price data, while health_check monitors the service's operational status. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for each task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_price, health_check), using clear and descriptive verbs that align with their actions. The naming is uniform and predictable across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a price service domain. While get_price is essential, the tool set lacks operations like historical price retrieval, multi-asset queries, or market data analysis, making it too limited for typical cryptocurrency price service workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a cryptocurrency price service. It includes basic price fetching and health monitoring but misses critical operations such as historical price data, price comparisons, or support for multiple cryptocurrencies, which are standard expectations in this domain.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level ('Get cryptocurrency price data') without describing response format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a real-time or cached service. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

    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 that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

    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 complexity (6 parameters including historical data options) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what price data is returned (single price? OHLC? volume?), how historical timestamps work with different resolutions, or what the response structure looks like. For a price data tool with multiple configuration options, more context is needed.

    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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, defaults, and required status. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

    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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get cryptocurrency price data from the price service' - a specific verb ('Get') with resource ('cryptocurrency price data') and source ('price service'). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, but the only sibling is 'health_check' which serves a completely different purpose, so differentiation isn't needed here.

    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. While there's only one sibling tool ('health_check') with an unrelated purpose, the description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for price data retrieval.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about what 'health status' means, what the response format might be, whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance characteristics. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

    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 that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple health check tool and front-loads the essential information.

    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?

    For a health check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'health status', what format the response takes, what values might indicate problems, or how this differs from other service monitoring approaches. The context signals show this is a simple tool, but the description doesn't provide enough operational guidance.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this absence.

    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 states the action ('Check') and target ('health status of the price service'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_price', which appears to be a different operation (fetching price data vs. checking service health).

    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. While the purpose suggests it's for monitoring service health, there's no mention of when this check should be performed, what triggers its use, or how it differs from simply calling 'get_price' to test service availability.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

price-service-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

price-service-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BitwaveCorp/price-service-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server