Skip to main content
Glama

onchainpulse

Decode legislation, track RWA tokenization, model sector scenarios, and guide onchain integration with pay-per-query intelligence.

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 ($0.10): Legislative intelligence — plain English bill translation with sector impact • rwa ($0.10): Real world asset intelligence — market data and institutional tracking • scenario ($0.10): 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 ($0.10): Regulatory compliance intelligence — jurisdiction-specific framework guidance • tokenize ($0.10): Tokenization intelligence — how to tokenize any asset type • yield ($0.10): Tokenized yield intelligence — live rates and risk-adjusted comparison • glossary ($0.10): Plain English decoder — any onchain finance or regulatory term • snapshot ($0.10): State of the transition — weekly/monthly macro brief

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNoType of analysis
langNoResponse language (ISO 639-1 code)
qNoBill name or topic (e.g. 'GENIUS Act', 'stablecoin regulation', 'MiCA')
jurisdictionNoJurisdiction to focus on
asset_classNoSpecific asset class focus (e.g. 'US Treasuries', 'real estate', 'private credit')
triggerNoThe development to model (e.g. 'GENIUS Act passes', 'DTCC full tokenization launch', 'MiCA enforcement begins')
sectorNoSector to focus on, or 'all' for comprehensive coverage
typeNoType of transition
contextNoAdditional context about the user's situation
periodNoperiod
topicNotopic
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')
asset_typeNoAsset type to analyze (e.g. 'real estate', 'equity', 'bond', 'private credit', 'art')
riskNoRisk tolerance for recommendations framing
termNoTerm to explain (e.g. 'atomic settlement', 'MiCA', 'CASP', 'yield bearing stablecoin', 'RWA')
scopeNoscope
timeframeNotimeframe
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses payment requirement (x402) and lists endpoints/pricing, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication flow beyond payment, or what happens on failure.

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 structured with a summary paragraph and bullet list of endpoints. It is not excessively long, though some information (e.g., 'Coverage: Global') could be integrated more concisely.

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 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify how parameters relate to specific endpoints or actions, leaving an agent to guess which parameters are relevant for a given task.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it lists endpoints but does not map them to specific parameters.

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 is an 'Intelligence API for the onchain financial transition' and lists specific endpoints (legislation, rwa, scenario, etc.) that distinguish it from sibling 'pulse' tools focused on other domains.

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 provides clear context with endpoint list and pricing, but does not explicitly compare this tool to its siblings or state when not to use it. The name and domain implication are strong enough for an agent to infer typical usage.

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/pulsenetwork-mcp'

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