Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

request_custom_research

Submit a custom research request on a crypto topic. Provide your email and topic to receive an order ID and pricing for a deep-dive report.

Instructions

Escalate to BCA deep-researcher skill. Required: contact_email, topic. Pro tier. Returns order_id + pricing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contact_email": "<contact_email>",
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "request_custom_research"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contact_emailYesRequired. Contact email for report delivery.
topicYes
depthNostandard
deadline_daysNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions escalation to a deep-researcher skill, indicating delegation. However, it does not explain if the process is asynchronous, typical response time, or any side effects like cost implications.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the action and key details. 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?

Considering no output schema and 4 parameters, the description provides a high-level purpose and output format (order_id + pricing) but lacks details on depth options, deadline implications, or escalation process. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only contact_email has description). The description adds that contact_email and topic are required, but does not explain depth or deadline_days beyond what the schema provides (enum and default). For low coverage, more compensation is needed.

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 action ('Escalate to BCA deep-researcher skill'), specifies required parameters (contact_email, topic), mentions tier (Pro), and indicates output (order_id + pricing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mostly data retrieval or analysis tools.

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 usage for custom research requests and notes Pro tier requirement. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for escalation-driven research.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools