Skip to main content
Glama

onchainpulse

Provides onchain financial transition intelligence: decodes legislation, tracks RWA tokenization, models sector scenarios, and guides onchain integration.

Instructions

OnchainPulse: Intelligence API for the onchain financial transition. Decodes legislation, tracks RWA tokenization, models sector scenarios, guides onchain integration. All endpoints require x402 payment (USDC on Ba

Coverage: Global

Endpoints: • legislation ($0.15): Legislative intelligence — plain English bill translation with sector impact • rwa ($0.15): Real world asset intelligence — market data and institutional tracking • scenario ($0.20): Sector impact scenario modeling — if/then structural analysis • transition ($0.10): Onchain transition guide — practical onboarding by type • monitor ($0.10): Institutional onchain activity monitor — weekly/monthly brief • compliance ($0.15): Regulatory compliance intelligence — jurisdiction-specific framework guidance • tokenize ($0.15): Tokenization intelligence — how to tokenize any asset type • yield ($0.25): Tokenized yield intelligence — live rates and risk-adjusted comparison • glossary ($0.05): Plain English decoder — any onchain finance or regulatory term • snapshot ($0.10): State of the transition — weekly/monthly macro brief • memecoin ($0.015): Solana memecoin pre-trade safety + momentum verdict (deterministic, no-LLM) • evmtoken ($0.015): EVM memecoin pre-trade safety + momentum verdict (deterministic, no-LLM, multi-chain)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoBill name or topic (e.g. 'GENIUS Act', 'stablecoin regulation', 'MiCA')
langNoResponse language (ISO 639-1 code)
mintNoSPL token mint address (base58)
riskNoRisk tolerance for recommendations framing
termNoTerm to explain (e.g. 'atomic settlement', 'MiCA', 'CASP', 'yield bearing stablecoin', 'RWA')
typeNoType of transition
chainNoEVM chain (default base)
scopeNoscope
topicNotopic
actionNoType of analysis
periodNoperiod
sectorNoSector to focus on, or 'all' for comprehensive coverage
addressNoERC-20 token contract address (0x + 40 hex)
contextNoAdditional context about the user's situation
triggerNoThe development to model (e.g. 'GENIUS Act passes', 'DTCC full tokenization launch', 'MiCA enforcement begins')
use_caseNoWhat the entity wants to do (e.g. 'issue a stablecoin', 'operate a crypto exchange', 'accept USDC payments')
frameworkNoSpecific framework to focus on (e.g. 'MiCA', 'GENIUS Act')
timeframeNotimeframe
asset_typeNoAsset type to analyze (e.g. 'real estate', 'equity', 'bond', 'private credit', 'art')
asset_classNoSpecific asset class focus (e.g. 'US Treasuries', 'real estate', 'private credit')
jurisdictionNoJurisdiction to focus on
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It mentions the x402 payment requirement (though truncated) and notes that memecoin endpoints are deterministic and no-LLM. However, it lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or other behaviors. Incomplete payment information reduces clarity.

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 lengthy but uses bullet points for endpoints, aiding scanning. However, the initial sentence is dense, and the payment info is cut off. It could be more concise without losing essential details.

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 21 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain how parameters map to endpoints. The truncation of payment details and lack of workflow guidance leave the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions that are adequate (e.g., 'Bill name or topic' for q). The tool's description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond listing endpoint names and prices. Baseline of 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 defines OnchainPulse as an intelligence API for onchain financial transition, with specific verbs like 'Decodes legislation, tracks RWA tokenization, models sector scenarios, guides onchain integration.' It distinguishes from sibling *pulse tools by its unique domain focus.

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 lists endpoints with prices but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools cover other domains, so the domain-specific naming implies usage context, but no direct guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/GTCC777/mcp-pulsenetwork'

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