This server is a read-only MCP bridge to the Pulse Verity Index, letting AI agents fetch and locally verify signed crypto index prices.
Get a current signed index price for a symbol with get_index_price.
Fetch signed prices for up to 100 symbols in one batch with get_index_batch.- List catalog assets and filter by band or status with list_index_assets.
Retrieve the recorded signed print nearest a specified time with get_settlement_print.
Locally verify signed prints using ECDSA P-256/SHA-256 with verify_print.
No write tools: the server is strictly read-only and exposes no trading, wallet, or platform-engine functionality.
pulse-verity connects an AI agent to the Pulse Verity Index: signed,
verifiable crypto index prices through the Model Context Protocol (MCP).
It exposes five read-only tools:
Tool | Purpose |
| Return the current signed index value. |
| Read 1–100 symbols with signed successful rows and per-symbol errors. |
| Discover one catalog page with coverage and measured cadence. |
| Return the recorded signed print nearest a moment. |
| Verify a print locally with ECDSA and the published public key. |
There are no write tools. This package contains no Pulse platform engine code.
It only calls the public Pulse Verity Index API. The developer supplies their
own API key through PULSE_API_KEY.
Create a developer API key at thepulse.markets/developers, then add the server to your MCP client:
claude mcp add pulse-verity \
--env PULSE_API_KEY=pidx_your_key_here \
-- npx -y pulse-verityFor any stdio MCP client:
{
"mcpServers": {
"pulse-verity": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "pulse-verity"],
"env": { "PULSE_API_KEY": "pidx_your_key_here" }
}
}
}Related MCP server: openpulsechain
The same five tools run on Pulse's side at https://pulseclone-production.up.railway.app/api/index/mcp.
Claude (web, desktop, mobile): Settings → Connectors → Add custom connector → paste the URL → Connect, then sign in with your developer email and password.
ChatGPT: Settings → Connectors → Create → paste the URL. Same sign-in.
Claude Code: claude mcp add --transport http pulse-verity https://pulseclone-production.up.railway.app/api/index/mcp --header "Authorization: Bearer pidx_your_key"
Any client with remote MCP support: { "url": "https://pulseclone-production.up.railway.app/api/index/mcp", "headers": { "Authorization": "Bearer pidx_your_key" } }
Sign-in is standard OAuth 2.1 (dynamic registration, PKCE). Every hosted call meters against
your key exactly like a REST call. Discovery documents live at /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server
and /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/api/index/mcp.
All of these run npx -y pulse-verity with PULSE_API_KEY in the environment.
Codex CLI — ~/.codex/config.toml:
[mcp_servers.pulse-verity]
command = "npx"
args = ["-y", "pulse-verity"]
env = { PULSE_API_KEY = "pidx_your_key" }Windsurf — ~/.codeium/windsurf/mcp_config.json, and Cursor — ~/.cursor/mcp.json:
{ "mcpServers": { "pulse-verity": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "pulse-verity"], "env": { "PULSE_API_KEY": "pidx_your_key" } } } }VS Code (Copilot agent mode) — .vscode/mcp.json:
{ "servers": { "pulse-verity": { "type": "stdio", "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "pulse-verity"], "env": { "PULSE_API_KEY": "pidx_your_key" } } } }Gemini CLI — ~/.gemini/settings.json, same mcpServers block as Cursor.
Download pulse-verity-1.1.0.mcpb,
open it with Claude Desktop (macOS or Windows), paste your pidx_ key when asked, and the five tools appear in
Claude. No terminal, no config file. The bundle is the same dist/index.js npm ships, packed with its two
runtime dependencies; rebuild it with npx @anthropic-ai/mcpb pack . releases/pulse-verity-<version>.mcpb.
npm: pulse-verity
Official MCP Registry: io.github.PulseBet/pulse-verity
Cursor: this repo ships a .mcp.json, so it installs from the Cursor MCP directory with your key filled in
Claude Desktop: add the JSON block above to claude_desktop_config.json
Smithery: smithery.yaml in this repo declares the stdio command and the one key it needs
Every listing runs the same npm package. There is no hosted copy of the server; the
key never leaves your machine except on the request to thepulse.markets.
Read-only MCP tools only.
API origin pinned to the public Pulse Verity Index API.
Developer key read from local configuration and sent only to that API.
Print verification happens locally using ECDSA P-256/SHA-256.
HTTP requests use a 15-second timeout, a 1 MiB response limit and no redirects.
Verification accepts at most 16 published keys; refreshes coalesce and are limited to once per 30 seconds.
API failures do not echo remote bodies, headers or transport errors. Returned credentials are redacted.
No wallet, account, platform-engine, venue-level, or private repository code.
See SECURITY.md for reporting instructions.
Price and batch tools use the existing signed /api/index/v1/price and
/api/index/v1/batch endpoints. A successful row can include priceText, kid,
tier, confidence, dispersionBps, interval, sources, engine and
cadence. Preserve priceText and kid when passing it to verify_print.
The immutable pulse-index-v1 signature authenticates only this payload:
pulse-index-v1
<symbol>
<priceText if present, otherwise String(price)>
<at>
<grade>verify_print rejects conflicting price and priceText values. It selects
the published public key matching kid; legacy prints without kid are tried
against the bounded published key ring. The ring is cached for five minutes,
with a bounded refresh after a failed check. Legacy public-key responses
containing only publicKeyPem still work for prints without kid. Verification
is local, but the public keys are initially trusted through Pulse's pinned
HTTPS endpoint. A key that is no longer published cannot verify an old print
through this tool.
valid: true authenticates the canonical price fields. It does not authenticate
kid, quality, confidence, dispersion, interval, source counts, cadence, batch
status or archive deltaMs. Check deltaMs before using a sampled historical
print for a particular moment.
The asset tool calls /api/index/v1/verity/catalog. It defaults to 50 rows,
accepts limit from 1 to 100 and offset from 0 to 100000, and never fetches
additional pages automatically. Its rows and any displayed prices are unsigned.
Use the price or batch tool to obtain signed receipts. Catalog coverage changes;
a listed asset or a catalog total does not guarantee a fresh price. Unavailable
prices are not zero. API tier limits can be lower than the tool's batch limit.
npm ci
npm testThe offline suite compiles this small MCP package, exercises exact-price and rotated-key verification, tests MCP tool bounds and mocked HTTP limits, and runs the Pulse WORDS vocabulary gate. It needs no API key or live market-data calls.
Use pulse-verity for supported installs and updates. Other similarly named
packages are not a guarantee of availability or release parity.
MIT
Read up to 100 crypto symbols in one /api/index/v1/batch request. Returns observations with individually signed successful rows and per-symbol errors for unavailable rows. Your API tier may allow fewer symbols. Verify each successful row with verify_print; surrounding batch and quality metadata are not signed. No automatic retries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: individually signed successful rows, per-symbol errors for unavailable rows, unsigned surrounding metadata, and no automatic retries. Describes the partial-success model and verification requirement with no contradiction to readOnlyHint=true.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, return shape, tier limits, verification step, retry policy. No fluff or redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even without an output schema, the description sketches the return envelope (observations, individually signed rows, per-symbol errors) and the follow-up verification step. A more concrete response-field description would improve completeness, but for a simple one-parameter read tool it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by adding the tier-dependent limit caveat ('Your API tier may allow fewer symbols') that the schema's maxItems=100 does not capture. However, it does not clarify symbol format or normalization expectations beyond what the schema pattern already enforces.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource ('crypto symbols'), and scope ('up to 100 in one /api/index/v1/batch request'). The batch nature plus per-symbol error handling clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_index_price and get_settlement_print.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clear context for when to call it (multi-symbol reads up to 100) with a post-call workflow ('Verify each successful row with verify_print') and a tier-limits caveat. However, it never explicitly names get_index_price as the single-symbol alternative or states when-not to use the batch tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a current signed crypto index price from /api/index/v1/price. Returns symbol, price, optional priceText, at, grade, signature, kid and sig. Preserve priceText exactly for verify_print. Optional tier, confidence, dispersionBps, interval, sources, engine and cadence describe the observation but are not covered by the v1 signature. Coverage changes: use list_index_assets to discover assets. A stale or unavailable response means no current price, never zero.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Crypto ticker symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description explains important behavior: the response is signed, includes a kid and sig, some fields are not covered by the v1 signature, priceText must be preserved exactly, and a stale response should never be interpreted as zero. This significantly helps the agent interpret results correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is information-dense yet well-structured: purpose and endpoint first, then return fields, then critical caveats about signature coverage and error semantics. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description supplies a full list of return fields and explains the signature boundary. It also covers asset discovery, exact-preservation requirements for verify_print, and stale-response behavior. For a one-parameter read-only tool, nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the single symbol parameter with a pattern, length constraints, and examples, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no parameter-specific formatting guidance, but at 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a current signed crypto index price from /api/index/v1/price.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to list_index_assets for asset discovery and verify_print for exact priceText preservation, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: this tool retrieves a single signed index price, and coverage changes should route the agent to list_index_assets. It also warns that a stale/unavailable response means no current price, never zero. It does not explicitly mention get_index_batch as an alternative for multiple symbols, but the provided guidance is still strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the recorded signed index print nearest a requested time from /api/index/v1/print. Accepts ISO-8601 or epoch milliseconds. Check deltaMs: it is the distance between your requested time and the sampled print. Sampling and retention are bounded; a recorded print need not equal a separate live read. Preserve priceText and kid when present for verify_print. deltaMs and other metadata are not signed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | Yes | ||
| symbol | Yes | Crypto ticker symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely non-obvious details: the result is signed, deltaMs is not part of the signed content, sampling/retention are bounded, and metadata is not signed. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and each following sentence adds essential operational detail—time formats, deltaMs, sampling limitations, and verify_print preservation. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even without an output schema, the description covers the relevant response semantics: deltaMs, priceText, kid, and signed vs. non-signed metadata. This is enough for an agent to invoke the tool and correctly feed output into verify_print.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema describes symbol but not at. The description compensates by explaining the accepted formats for at (ISO-8601 or epoch milliseconds) and the meaning of deltaMs. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on symbol beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb plus resource: 'get the recorded signed index print nearest a requested time' from '/api/index/v1/print'. This clearly distinguishes it from live-read siblings while specifying the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides important usage context: a recorded print may differ from a live read, deltaMs measures distance from the requested time, and priceText/kid should be preserved for verify_print. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_index_price, but effectively implies when a signed historical print is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read one bounded page from /api/index/v1/verity/catalog. Discover crypto symbols and their current coverage status and measured cadence. Catalog rows, prices and metadata are unsigned: use get_index_price or get_index_batch for signed receipts. Availability changes; total is a catalog count, not a count of fresh prices. No automatic pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| band | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: catalog rows are unsigned, total is not a count of fresh prices, availability changes, and pagination is bounded and manual. This goes well beyond what the structured annotations alone communicate, with no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four tight sentences with no filler. The action and endpoint are front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct, decision-relevant fact: unsigned data, alternatives, total semantics, and pagination behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers endpoint, purpose, unsigned data caveat, total semantics, pagination behavior, and sibling alternatives. It falls slightly short by not explicitly describing the response structure or stating that limit/offset are the paging controls, though these are implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the burden falls on the description. It provides indirect semantic clues: 'bounded page' implies limit/offset, 'coverage status' maps to status, and 'measured cadence' maps to band. However, it never explicitly defines each parameter or explains how to use the enum values, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one bounded page from /api/index/v1/verity/catalog.' It clearly states what the tool does—discover crypto symbols, coverage status, and cadence—and differentiates it from siblings by explicitly pointing to get_index_price and get_index_batch for signed receipts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives concrete guidance on when to prefer alternatives: 'use get_index_price or get_index_batch for signed receipts.' It also warns that there is no automatic pagination, implying the caller must handle paging. It does not explicitly contrast with get_settlement_print or verify_print, but the primary use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Verify a signed print locally with ECDSA P-256/SHA-256. Canonical bytes are pulse-index-v1\n\n<priceText or String(price)>\n\n. The public key ring is fetched from /api/index/v1/pubkey, cached for five minutes and refreshed at most once per 30 seconds on a failed check. A supplied kid selects only that exact key; old prints without kid are tried against the bounded published ring. No API key is sent to the public-key endpoint. valid=true authenticates only the canonical price fields, not kid, sig, quality, cadence, timestamps outside at, or other metadata. An invalid signature can mean an altered print or a key no longer published; it does not by itself prove tampering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | Yes | Timestamp from the print, unchanged | |
| kid | No | Signing key identifier, when provided by the API | |
| sig | No | ||
| grade | Yes | ||
| price | Yes | ||
| symbol | Yes | Crypto ticker symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL | |
| priceText | No | Exact signed price text, when provided by the API; preserve unchanged | |
| signature | Yes | ECDSA P-256 signature in base64 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses detailed runtime behavior: public key ring fetching with caching and refresh policy, kid-based key selection, no API key sent, and what valid=true does and does not authenticate. This is strong transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and information-dense, with four sentences covering purpose, canonical bytes, key handling, and validation semantics. No fluff or redundant phrasing is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core verification flow, key management, and the meaning of valid=true, which is sufficient given the lack of an output schema. It does not explicitly specify error behavior on missing keys or network failures, but those are secondary to the main verification purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies how parameters map to the canonical byte layout: 'pulse-index-v1\n<symbol>\n<priceText or String(price)>\n<at>\n<grade>'. It also explains the optional kid semantics and the role of the signature, adding meaning beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific action: 'Verify a signed print locally with ECDSA P-256/SHA-256.' It identifies both the operation (verify) and the resource (a signed print), and the cryptographic context distinguishes it from the sibling getter tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the sibling getter tools, nor does it give an alternative. It implies verification use cases but stops short of clear selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.1.0get_index_batchget_index_priceget_settlement_printlist_index_assetsverify_printScored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: current single price, current batch, catalog discovery, historical settlement print, and local signature verification. Even the overlapping price readers are cleanly separated by single vs. batch semantics and explicit cross-references.
All tools use lowercase snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_index_price, get_index_batch, list_index_assets, get_settlement_print, verify_print. The verb choices match the resource or action being performed.
Five tools is well-scoped for a signed index-price service: a live single read, a live batch read, asset discovery, historical print retrieval, and verification. Each tool covers a distinct workflow step without redundancy.
The surface supports the full read/verify workflow: discover assets, fetch current signed prices singly or in bulk, retrieve a near-time recorded print, and verify any print locally. The service is read-only, so CRUD operations are out of scope, and no obvious workflow dead ends are apparent.
Crypto market signals and portfolio telemetry. 6 tools pay-per-call in USDC, no API key.
Five read-only tools: spot prices, observed premiums, price history, Goldback rate, and currencies.
Crypto price-event settlement verdicts and US building-permit data, paid per call in USDC.
Verify official facts with Bitcoin-anchored proof. 180+ signals, x402 pay-per-call.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PulseBet/pulse-verity'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
