あらゆる MCP 互換エージェント（Claude Code、Claude Desktop、Cursor、Windsurf、Codex …）に暗号資産のライブ市場シグナルとポートフォリオのテレメトリーを提供する、MCP（Model Context Protocol）サーバーです。
このうち6つのツールは x402 によるペイ・パー・コール（呼び出しごとの従量課金）方式です。登録もアカウントも API キーも不要です。 エージェントは自身のウォレットから Base 上の USDC で数セントを支払い、同じリクエスト内でデータを受け取ります。
claude mcp add stelar -- npx -y stelar-signals-mcpまたは、任意の MCP クライアント設定で:
{
"mcpServers": {
"stelar": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "stelar-signals-mcp"] }
}
}このサーバーは環境変数が何も設定されていなくても起動し、すべてのツールを一覧表示します。
Related MCP server: BlackSwan MCP Server
ツール | 価格 | 取得内容 |
| $0.005 | 現在価格、24時間・7日間の変動、強気/弱気/中立シグナル |
| $0.005 | テキストまたは資産に対するセンチメントスコア（-1〜+1）とラベル |
| $0.005 | AI が管理する暗号資産ポートフォリオのライブテレメトリー — アロケーション、調整済み P&L、シグナル投票、人間による承認の記録 |
| $0.02 | ボラティリティ/ドローダウンのリスクレジーム — ATR% と30日間 p80 ベースラインの比較、low/med/high でラベル付け |
| $0.03 | マーケットレジーム（chop / uptrend / downtrend / high-volatility）に加え、グリッドトレードの適合性の判定 |
| $0.05 | ライブの24時間マーケット構造から算出したグリッド数、間隔%、価格帯、グリッドごとのアロケーション |
これらは https://api.stelardigital.com を呼び出します。この API は支払いチャレンジとともに HTTP 402 を返します。x402 対応クライアントは自動的に決済を行い、再試行します。対応資産: SOL、BTC、ETH、XRP、DOGE、LTC、ADA、XLM
これらは実際の市場データに基づく本番稼働中のエンドポイントであり、デモ用のスタブではありません。
crypto_regime、crypto_sentiment、pricecheck、token_risk、summarize、factcheck は RapidAPI 経由で提供されます。使用するには RAPIDAPI_KEY を設定してください:
claude mcp add stelar -e RAPIDAPI_KEY=your-key -- npx -y stelar-signals-mcpキーがない場合、これら6つは明確なエラーを返します。上記の6つの有料 x402 ツールは引き続き動作します。これらは RapidAPI を一切使用しないためです。
GET https://api.stelardigital.com/catalog endpoints, prices, parameters
GET https://api.stelardigital.com/.well-known/x402 x402 discovery manifest
GET https://api.stelardigital.com/openapi.json OpenAPI 3.1 specホスト型の streamable-HTTP MCP エンドポイントも https://api.stelardigital.com/mcp で稼働中です。
シグナルの対象は上記の主要8銘柄であり、任意のトークンではありません。
有料ツールには資金のあるウォレットが必要です。ウォレットがない場合、データではなく HTTP 402 が返ります。
すべてのレスポンスには generated_at が含まれます。キャッシュは1分を超えて保持されません。
Stelar Digital によって開発されました。人間1人。AI 1体。1社丸ごと。
MIT ライセンスです。
Market regime (chop / trend_up / trend_down / high_vol) for a major crypto pair, powered by the same classifier that steers a live production grid-trading bot. Returns a grid_suitability verdict (good/poor/etc) telling an agent whether current conditions favor range-bound (grid) strategies or trend-following ones. Use this before deciding to deploy a grid bot, mean-reversion strategy, or trend-follow strategy on SOL, XLM, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE, LTC, or ADA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Asset symbol, one of: SOL, XLM, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE, LTC, ADA |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is powered by a live production bot and returns a verdict, but does not disclose read-only behavior, rate limits, or potential side effects. Missing explicit assurance of non-destructiveness.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence contributes value, including usage guidance and output description.
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 simple classifier with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the output format (regime + verdict) and supported assets. It could elaborate on how the suitability verdict is determined, but overall it is 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?
The input schema fully documents the single 'asset' parameter with an enum and description (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: classifying market regime (chop/trend_up/trend_down/high_vol) for major crypto pairs, and returning a grid_suitability verdict. This distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_sentiment (sentiment analysis) and pricecheck (price data).
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 explicitly advises use before deploying grid bots, mean-reversion, or trend-follow strategies on a specific set of assets (SOL, XLM, etc.). It does not mention when to avoid or compare to sibling tools like crypto_sentiment, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Sentiment score (-1 to +1) with a bullish/neutral/bearish label, for either raw text or a crypto asset's recent price action, via an LLM. Give it EXACTLY ONE of text (free-form text to score) or asset (one of SOL, XLM, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE, LTC, ADA). Useful for agents building trading signals, news pipelines, or social-listening tools without running their own LLM sentiment call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Free text to score (omit if using `asset`) | |
| asset | No | Asset symbol to score sentiment for (omit if using `text`) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions using an LLM and returning a score and label, but does not disclose limitations, latency, error cases, or side effects. Could be more transparent.
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 two concise sentences plus a usage instruction. No wasted words, key information front-loaded. Very efficient.
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?
Given no output schema, the description mentions the return format. It is complete for a simple sentiment tool, covering inputs, outputs, and usage constraints. No gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds clarity by explaining parameters and emphasizing mutual exclusivity ('EXACTLY ONE'), which goes beyond the schema.
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 clearly states it provides a sentiment score (-1 to +1) with a label, for either raw text or a crypto asset's recent price action. This distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_regime or factcheck.
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 explicitly says to provide exactly one of `text` or `asset` and lists valid assets. It also mentions use cases (trading signals, news pipelines). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fact-check verdict (true / false / uncertain) with a confidence score (0-1) and a 1-2 sentence reasoning for any factual claim, via an LLM. Useful for content moderation, chatbot/agent guardrails, and misinformation screening. Returns 'uncertain' for opinions or claims requiring live/real-time data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | The factual statement to verify |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral aspects: it uses an LLM, returns a verdict with confidence and reasoning, and handles edge cases (opinions, need for real-time data). Without annotations, the description adequately informs the agent of the tool's behavior and limitations.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output, and usage boundaries. Every sentence adds unique value without 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?
The description fully covers the tool's functionality: input (a claim), output (verdict, confidence, reasoning), and special cases (returns 'uncertain' for non-factual or real-time claims). No output schema exists, but the description compensates by detailing the return structure. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is complete.
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 single parameter 'claim' is described as 'The factual statement to verify' in both the schema and description. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to return a verdict (true/false/uncertain), confidence score, and reasoning for a factual claim. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (crypto_regime, crypto_sentiment, etc.) by focusing on general fact-checking rather than cryptocurrency-specific analysis.
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 explicitly lists use cases: content moderation, guardrails, misinformation screening. It also notes when the tool returns 'uncertain' for opinions or claims needing live data. However, it does not mention when to avoid using it or suggest alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current price, 24h and 7d percent change, and a simple bullish/bearish/neutral signal for a major crypto asset. Low-latency market-data lookup for dashboards, bots, and alerts — one of SOL, XLM, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE, LTC, ADA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Asset symbol, one of: SOL, XLM, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE, LTC, ADA |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only mentions 'Low-latency' performance but does not disclose safety, destructive potential, or other behaviors. Burden is on description due to missing 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?
Two concise sentences: first describes output, second lists use cases and assets. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema, but description explains return values (price, changes, signal) and use cases. Single parameter is fully documented. All necessary context provided.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (asset enum). Description lists assets again but adds no new meaning beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states it provides current price, 24h and 7d percent change, and a bullish/bearish/neutral signal for major crypto assets. Lists specific supported assets. Distinguishes from siblings like crypto_regime or crypto_sentiment.
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?
Explicitly mentions use cases: dashboards, bots, alerts. Lists supported assets but does not provide when-not-to-use or explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tight 3-5 sentence summary of a URL or a raw text block, via an LLM. Give it EXACTLY ONE of url (a page to fetch and summarize) or text (raw text to summarize directly). For agents/pipelines that need a fast, information-dense digest without running their own LLM call or web fetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Page URL to fetch and summarize | |
| text | No | Raw text to summarize directly |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it uses an LLM, fetches URL if provided, and outputs a 3-5 sentence summary. Lacks details on limits (e.g., text length, rate limits) but covers core behavior well.
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?
Two sentences with zero wasted words. First sentence defines purpose and output; second gives critical usage instruction. Perfectly concise.
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?
Given only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what it does, how to use it, and what output to expect. Could mention error cases or size limits, but not essential for this simple tool.
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 already provides descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by clarifying mutual exclusivity ('EXACTLY ONE') and that URL is fetched, which tells the agent how parameters interact.
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?
Clearly states the tool summarizes a URL or text via LLM, specifying output length (tight 3-5 sentences). Distinguishes from sibling tools which are in different domains (crypto, fact-checking, etc.), so purpose is unique.
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?
Explicitly instructs to provide exactly one of 'url' or 'text'. Provides context: 'For agents/pipelines that need a fast, information-dense digest without running their own LLM call or web fetch.' Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context implies alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Volatility / drawdown risk regime (low / med / high) for a major crypto asset, extending the same classifier behind crypto_regime. Tells an agent whether current volatility is elevated vs its 30-day baseline — useful for position sizing and stop-placement logic. One of SOL, XLM, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE, LTC, ADA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Asset symbol, one of: SOL, XLM, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE, LTC, ADA |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the output (low/med/high regime), the basis (volatility vs 30-day baseline), and the applicability to major crypto assets. It adds context about the underlying classifier and the tool's non-destructive nature. Some limitations or edge cases could be added, but overall it provides good behavioral insight.
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 three sentences, concisely front-loading purpose, use case, and supported assets. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return value (low/med/high regime), the logic (volatility vs baseline), the supported assets, and a use case. It references the sibling tool for context, making it complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.
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 description coverage is 100%—the single 'asset' parameter is fully described with an enum. The description merely restates the supported assets ('One of SOL, XLM, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE, LTC, ADA'), adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles semantics.
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 clearly states the tool returns a volatility/drawdown risk regime (low/med/high) for a major crypto asset, specifically comparing current volatility to a 30-day baseline. It distinguishes itself from the sibling crypto_regime tool by noting it extends the same classifier but focuses on volatility risk. The verb 'tells' and resource 'risk regime' are specific.
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 provides clear context by stating the tool is 'useful for position sizing and stop-placement logic' and that it extends the classifier behind crypto_regime. This gives implicit guidance on when to use it vs. the sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusionary criteria.
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.
v1.0.0crypto_regimecrypto_sentimentfactcheckpricechecksummarizetoken_riskMost tools are distinct, but crypto_regime and token_risk both describe risk/regime for crypto assets, which could cause confusion despite different focuses (market vs. volatility). Other tools like pricecheck, sentiment, factcheck, and summarize are clearly separated.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but there is a mix of single-word names (factcheck, pricecheck, summarize) and crypto-prefixed names (crypto_regime, crypto_sentiment, token_risk). No major inconsistencies, but not perfectly uniform.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a crypto signals service. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The set covers market regime, sentiment, price, risk, fact-checking, and summarization. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no on-chain data or advanced technical indicators), but the core signal needs are addressed. The inclusion of general-purpose tools (factcheck, summarize) is a slight deviation from the crypto focus.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Crypto market signals, technical indicators, and sentiment analysis for AI agents.
Market intelligence for AI agents. Real-time data, cross-market analysis, and regime detection.
Pay-per-call trading intelligence for AI agents: live market regime, trading signals, composite conv
Open API Marketplace for AI Agents. Crypto data tools with USDC payments on Base.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/StelarDigital/stelar-signals-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
