falsifylab

Official

by FalsifyLab

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose covering different market signals (airdrop farms, ETF flows, vault leaderboard, insider trades, macro snapshot, Polymarket whales, SEC filings, yield farms). There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscores pattern, using descriptive phrases that clearly indicate the tool's function. The naming style is predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the scope is well-balanced for a specialized market intelligence server. Each tool earns its place without being too few or too many.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover a diverse range of signals, but the set feels somewhat eclectic. Missing categories like general news, options data, or on-chain metrics do exist, but for the intended 'alpha signals' purpose, the coverage is reasonable.
Average 3.6/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 2 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'real-time scrape of HL info API', implying a live data fetch, but doesn't disclose potential rate limits, caching, or error handling. Some transparency, but not comprehensive.
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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the key content and data source. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple leaderboard tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what data it returns but lacks detail on parameter behavior and error scenarios. Adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions for parameters). The description does not explain the purpose or effect of 'limit' or 'sort_by' beyond what the schema's enum and default values implicitly show.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a Hyperliquid vault leaderboard, listing specific metrics (NAV, 30d return, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover different financial topics like airdrop farms or ETF flow.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context or any exclusions.
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, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or indicate any side effects, though the context implies a read operation.
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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core function, though it could benefit from slightly more structure or elaboration on parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple snapshot tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main function but lacks detail on parameter behavior and return format, leaving moderate gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the 'symbols' parameter, leaving its purpose and usage unclear. The description lists specific symbols, but does not clarify if the parameter filters or overrides this.
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?
The description clearly states it provides a live US macro snapshot with specific assets (SPX, NDX, etc.) and data points (last price + 1d/5d % change). It is distinct from sibling tools which cover different domains.
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?
The description implies usage for macro data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns whale positions, but does not mention rate limits, data freshness, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. Essential behavioral context is missing.
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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded and every phrase adds value. The 'Copy-trade reference' might be integrated, but overall it is efficient.
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?
Lacks important information such as output structure (fields returned), number of results, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no output schema, the description should help the agent understand what data to expect, but it only mentions 'wallets and positions' without detail.
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 single parameter 'min_position_usd' is explained by the description mentioning 'sized >$10k' which aligns with the default. The schema has no property descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful context for the parameter, though it could specify constraints like positive values.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns top Polymarket whale wallets with positions >$10k, with a copy-trade reference. It is specific about the resource and its scope, and distinct from sibling tools which cover different topics.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description mentions 'copy-trade reference' implying a use case, but does not specify conditions or alternatives. Differentiation from siblings is implicit via domain but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses key filters (P code, excluding awards/gifts) and time window, but does not explain if it returns historical data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key filter. It avoids waste but could structure the information more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and simple parameters, the description provides the essential idea and filter. However, it omits output format and any request/response details, leaving some gaps for agent usage.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It hints at parameters with '24-48h' and '3+ insiders', matching defaults, but does not explicitly describe the parameters' purpose, ranges, or constraints, leaving the schema largely unexplained.
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?
The description clearly states the tool identifies insider buy clusters (3+ insiders in 24-48h) from Form 4 filings, with filtering to open-market purchases. This verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools covering airdrops, ETFs, vaults, macro, etc.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While 'Bullish signal' implies a use case, there is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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?
The description provides minimal behavioral information. It does not disclose whether results are real-time, if authentication is needed, or what happens when no filings match. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and filtering options. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points for item codes) could improve readability, but it is still concise and informative.
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?
The description covers the essential aspects: today's filings, filtering by item codes and ticker, and the specific codes that are material. Given the simplicity of the tool and absence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The tool description adds significant value by mapping each item code to its meaning (e.g., 2.02 = earnings), which is not present in the schema alone. This helps agents understand correct parameter values.
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 retrieves material SEC 8-K filings today, filtered by specific item codes. It lists the relevant codes with brief explanations, making the purpose explicit. However, it could start with an action verb like 'Retrieve' for even greater clarity.
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?
The description implies usage context (today's filings, specific item codes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or how it compares to sibling tools, which are different in nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'realistic APY (emissions stripped)' and 'risk notes', hinting at data processing, but does not detail calculation methods, data freshness beyond '24h', error handling, or potential limitations. Adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and key features. No extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and key outputs. However, it lacks explanation of risk notes derivation, default limit, or pagination behavior. Could be more complete but is adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not mention any parameters (limit, min_apy, asset) or explain their purpose beyond what the schema already provides. No added value over 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'top DeFi yield farm picks' with specific attributes like 'realistic APY (emissions stripped), risk notes, TVL, protocol'. It specifies 'latest 24h' and the data source 'FalsifyLab daily aggregator', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'active_airdrop_farms'.
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?
While the description implies use for yield farming recommendations, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'active_airdrop_farms' or provide any conditions or limitations. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions detection from DefiLlama and included fields (APY, TVL, etc.), implying a read-only list operation. However, it does not specify update frequency, side effects, or rate limits, leaving some 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 three sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: purpose, detection method, and data source. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given no output schema and 4 parameters, the description sufficiently explains the tool's output fields (APY, TVL, capital, confidence) and source. It lacks details on ordering, pagination, or error handling, but for a list tool this is acceptable. A more complete description would include output structure.
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 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description adds marginal value by mentioning derived fields like 'confidence score' but does not detail the 'limit' parameter or clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'Active airdrop / points-farming opportunities' and distinguishes from siblings like 'top_yield_farms' by focusing on airdrops. It specifies the detection method and data source, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (for airdrop/points opportunities) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use. It provides context for usage but lacks formal guidance compared to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the data source and scope but does not state read-only nature, data freshness, or any limitations. It is adequate but not explicit.
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 extremely concise, one sentence with key details, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every part is essential with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the data returned.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by detailing the output fields (BTC+ETH net flow, 5d streak, cumulative AUM), providing value beyond 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?
The description clearly states it provides US-listed spot crypto ETF aggregate flows today, including BTC+ETH net flow, 5-day streak, and cumulative AUM. It specifies the source (SoSoValue), making it distinct from sibling tools like macro_tape or top_yield_farms.
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?
The description implies usage for obtaining today's ETF flow data but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, or any context on prerequisites or exclusions.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![falsifylab-alpha-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FalsifyLab/falsifylab-alpha-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FalsifyLab/falsifylab-alpha-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![falsifylab-alpha-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FalsifyLab/falsifylab-alpha-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FalsifyLab/falsifylab-alpha-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/FalsifyLab/falsifylab-alpha-mcp'

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