Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

coingecko_treasuries

List crypto treasury holders filtered by asset and holder type to view holdings, cost, value, mNAV, and 30-day activity.

Instructions

CoinGecko crypto treasuries. Lists entities that hold crypto treasuries, filtered by asset (all, bitcoin, ethereum, solana, bnb, xrp, tron) and holder_type (all, companies, governments), up to limit (default and max 100). Setting both filters to non-all values is rejected. Rows show holdings, cost, current value, mNAV and 30-day activity.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoTreasury asset filter, default all
limitNoRows to return, default 100, max 100
holder_typeNoTreasury holder type filter, default all
vs_currencyNoQuote currency

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / asset / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "all",
+  "bitcoin",
+  "ethereum",
+  "solana",
+  "bnb",
+  "xrp",
+  "tron"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / holder_type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "all",
+  "companies",
+  "governments"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / vs_currency / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "btc",
+  "eth",
+  "ltc",
+  "bch",
+  "bnb",
+  "eos",
+  "xrp",
+  "xlm",
+  "link",
+  "dot",
+  "yfi",
+  "sol",
+  "usd",
+  "aed",
+  "ars",
+  "aud",
+  "bdt",
+  "bhd",
+  "bmd",
+  "brl",
+  "cad",
+  "chf",
+  "clp",
+  "cny",
+  "czk",
+  "dkk",
+  "eur",
+  "gbp",
+  "gel",
+  "hkd",
+  "huf",
+  "idr",
+  "ils",
+  "inr",
+  "jpy",
+  "krw",
+  "kwd",
+  "lkr",
+  "mmk",
+  "mxn",
+  "myr",
+  "ngn",
+  "nok",
+  "nzd",
+  "php",
+  "pkr",
+  "pln",
+  "rub",
+  "sar",
+  "sek",
+  "sgd",
+  "thb",
+  "try",
+  "twd",
+  "uah",
+  "vef",
+  "vnd",
+  "zar",
+  "xdr",
+  "xag",
+  "xau",
+  "bits",
+  "sats"
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the default and hard cap on `limit`, the mutually-exclusive filter constraint, and enumerates the fields each row returns (holdings, cost, current value, mNAV, 30-day activity). It omits any statement about read vs write semantics or auth, but for a read-only listing this is largely inferable.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and then the filters, with no filler sentences. It spends some words restating enum values that already live in the schema, which is the only mild inefficiency.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the row fields. Combined with the disclosed filter constraint and limit cap, an agent has almost everything needed to call it, with the unmentioned `vs_currency` being the only substantive hole.

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 baseline is 3; the description re-lists the enum values for `asset` and `holder_type` and the limit bounds, which adds little beyond the schema. It also omits any mention of the `vs_currency` parameter, so the quote-currency dimension of the result values is left entirely to the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists entities that hold crypto treasuries') and names the two filterable dimensions, which is enough for an agent to recognize it among the many coingecko_* siblings. No tautology or restatement of the name.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides a concrete invocation rule ('setting both filters to non-`all` values is rejected') and default/max limit behavior, which is useful guidance. It does not, however, state when to reach for this tool versus other crypto-holdings sources, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools