Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides perpetual funding rates data from the Binance exchange. Utilizes the Coinbase-developed x402 protocol to facilitate pay-per-call USDC micropayments for crypto and DeFi data. Enables Ethereum gas price tracking, wallet portfolio analysis, and security scanning for Ethereum-based tokens. Provides perpetual funding rates data from the GMX decentralized exchange. Provides perpetual funding rates data from the Hyperliquid platform. Provides perpetual funding rates data from the OKX exchange. Offers gas price monitoring and DeFi yield scanning across the Polygon network.

x402-api

by fernsugi

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

@x402-api/mcp-server

MCP server that gives Claude, ChatGPT, and any MCP-compatible AI agent access to pay-per-call crypto/DeFi data via the x402 protocol.

8 tools. No API keys. AI agents pay USDC micropayments on Base, per request.

  ██╗  ██╗██╗  ██╗ ██████╗ ██████╗
   ╚██╗██╔╝██║  ██║██╔═══██╗╚════██╗
    ╚███╔╝ ███████║██║   ██║ █████╔╝
    ██╔██╗ ╚════██║██║   ██║██╔═══╝
   ██╔╝ ██╗     ██║╚██████╔╝███████╗
   ╚═╝  ╚═╝     ╚═╝ ╚═════╝ ╚══════╝

Tools

Tool	API Endpoint	Cost	Description
`get_crypto_prices`	`GET /api/price-feed`	0.001 USDC	BTC/ETH/SOL + top 24h movers
`get_gas_prices`	`GET /api/gas-tracker`	0.001 USDC	Multi-chain gas (ETH, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum)
`get_dex_quotes`	`GET /api/dex-quotes`	0.002 USDC	Swap quotes: Uniswap, SushiSwap, 1inch
`scan_token`	`GET /api/token-scanner`	0.003 USDC	Token security scan + rug-pull detection
`track_whales`	`GET /api/whale-tracker`	0.005 USDC	Holder concentration + whale alerts
`scan_yields`	`GET /api/yield-scanner`	0.005 USDC	DeFi yields: Aave, Compound, Morpho, Lido, Pendle
`get_funding_rates`	`GET /api/funding-rates`	0.008 USDC	Perp funding rates across 6 venues
`profile_wallet`	`GET /api/wallet-profiler`	0.008 USDC	Full wallet portfolio + risk profile

Related MCP server: oom-x402-mcp

Quick Start

Option A: Inspect mode (no payment needed)

Just run it — any 402 responses will return human-readable payment instructions:

npx @x402-api/mcp-server

Claude will tell you what's needed when a tool requires payment.

Option B: Auto-pay mode (fully autonomous)

Install optional payment deps and set your wallet key:

npm install -g @x402-api/mcp-server
npm install -g x402-fetch viem
export X402_WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY=0x<your_private_key>
x402-api-mcp

The server will auto-pay 402 responses using USDC on Base. Make sure your wallet has USDC on Base mainnet.

Claude Desktop Integration

Add to your claude_desktop_config.json:

Without auto-pay (inspect mode)

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "x402-api": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@x402-api/mcp-server"]
    }
  }
}

With auto-pay

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "x402-api": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@x402-api/mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "X402_WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY": "0x<your_private_key>"
      }
    }
  }
}

Config file location:

macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Linux: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

Environment Variables

Variable	Required	Description
`X402_WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY`	Optional	Private key for auto-pay (e.g. `0x...`). If set, x402-fetch handles payments automatically.
`X402_API_BASE_URL`	Optional	Override API URL (default: `https://x402-api.fly.dev`)

How x402 Payments Work

This API uses the x402 protocol — HTTP 402 Payment Required:

Agent calls tool → MCP server makes API request
Server returns 402 with payment details (amount, USDC address, Base network)
Auto-pay mode: x402-fetch signs and submits payment, retries request automatically
Manual mode: MCP returns 402 details so user/agent can arrange payment

Payment details:

Token: USDC on Base mainnet
Address: 0x60264c480b67adb557efEd22Cf0e7ceA792DefB7
Chain: Base (chain ID 8453)
Amount: 0.001–0.008 USDC per call (< 1 cent USD)

Tool Reference

`get_crypto_prices`

No parameters. Returns current prices for BTC, ETH, SOL + top 24h movers.

Cost: 0.001 USDC

`get_gas_prices`

No parameters. Returns gas prices for Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum — slow/standard/fast tiers.

Cost: 0.001 USDC

`get_dex_quotes`

Compare swap quotes across DEXes.

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
`from`	string	✅	Input token (e.g. `"ETH"`, `"0x..."`)
`to`	string	✅	Output token (e.g. `"USDC"`)
`amount`	string	✅	Amount to swap (e.g. `"1.5"`)

Cost: 0.002 USDC

`scan_token`

Token security scan — detects rug-pull flags, honeypot patterns, mint authority, etc.

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
`token`	string	✅	Contract address or symbol (e.g. `"PEPE"`)

Cost: 0.003 USDC

`track_whales`

Whale tracking — holder concentration, Gini coefficient, recent large moves.

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
`token`	string	✅	Contract address or symbol

Cost: 0.005 USDC

`scan_yields`

Top DeFi yield opportunities across Aave, Compound, Morpho, Lido, Pendle, etc.

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
`chain`	string	❌	Filter by chain: `"ethereum"`, `"base"`, `"arbitrum"`, `"polygon"`
`min_tvl`	number	❌	Minimum TVL in USD (e.g. `1000000`)

Cost: 0.005 USDC

`get_funding_rates`

Perpetual funding rates across Binance, OKX, Bybit, dYdX, GMX, Hyperliquid.

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
`asset`	string	❌	Asset symbol (e.g. `"BTC"`, `"ETH"`). All assets if omitted.

Cost: 0.008 USDC

`profile_wallet`

Full wallet portfolio analysis — holdings, DeFi positions, activity, PnL, risk score.

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
`address`	string	✅	Ethereum/Base wallet address (`0x...`)

Cost: 0.008 USDC

Development

git clone https://github.com/fernsugi/x402-api-mcp-server
cd x402-api-mcp-server

npm install
npm run build
npm start

To test without a payment wallet, simply run and see the 402 responses:

node dist/index.js

License

MIT

Available Tools

8 tools

get_crypto_pricesA

Get live cryptocurrency prices and top 24h movers. Returns BTC, ETH, SOL prices plus top gainers/losers. Costs 0.001 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base). Data sourced live from CoinGecko.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost, data source, and return contents (prices plus top movers). Could add error handling or update frequency but sufficient for a simple 0-param tool.

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?

Three concise sentences: what it does, what it returns, cost/source. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, data source, and output content. Could mention rate limits or error scenarios, but adequate for a simple call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters in schema (100% coverage). Baseline 4 applies as description adds no parameter info, but none 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?

Clearly states it gets live cryptocurrency prices and top 24h movers, naming specific coins (BTC, ETH, SOL). Distinguishes from siblings like get_dex_quotes or get_funding_rates by focusing on price data and movers.

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?

Mentions cost (0.001 USDC per call) and data source (CoinGecko), implying usage for price lookups, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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

get_dex_quotesA

Compare swap quotes across DEXes: Uniswap, SushiSwap, and 1inch. Returns best price, price impact, liquidity, and estimated fees for each venue. Costs 0.002 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`from`	Yes	Input token symbol or address (e.g. "ETH", "USDC", "0x...")
`to`	Yes	Output token symbol or address (e.g. "USDC", "DAI", "0x...")
`amount`	Yes	Amount to swap (e.g. "1.5" for 1.5 ETH)
`chain`	No	Chain to query (e.g. "ethereum", "base", "arbitrum"). Defaults to "ethereum".

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses a behavioral trait: the micropayment cost. Implies read-only nature through 'returns quotes' but doesn't explicitly state no side effects. Adequate for a quote tool.

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?

Two sentences, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple query tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does, what it returns, and the cost. Complete and sufficient for agent 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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?

Clearly states the tool compares swap quotes across specific DEXes (Uniswap, SushiSwap, 1inch) and lists returned data (best price, impact, liquidity, fees). Distinguishes from siblings like get_crypto_prices and get_gas_prices.

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?

Explicitly states the use case (comparing quotes) and the cost (0.002 USDC per call), providing context for when to use. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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

get_funding_ratesA

Get perpetual futures funding rates across 6 venues: Hyperliquid, dYdX v4, Aevo, GMX, Drift, and Vertex. Returns per-8h funding rate, annualized APR, predicted rate, open interest, and next funding time for each venue. Also returns ranked arbitrage opportunities (long low-rate venue, short high-rate venue) with spread in bps and annualized carry. Costs 0.008 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	No	Asset symbol (e.g. "BTC", "ETH", "SOL"). Returns all assets if omitted.
`min_spread`	No	Filter for arbitrage spreads >= N basis points (e.g. 0.5). Omit for no filter.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the cost per call (0.008 USDC) and the payment method (x402 micropayment on Base), which is critical for agent awareness. It also lists the venues and outputs, but lacks info on rate limits or error behavior.

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?

The description is three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary function, then details outputs and cost. Every sentence adds essential information without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (per-venue data and arbitrage opportunities). The optional parameters are handled. It covers the cost detail. Minor gaps remain regarding possible error scenarios or response size, but it is largely complete for a data-fetching tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, already explaining the parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that omitting 'asset' returns all assets and that 'min_spread' filters arbitrage opportunities. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 retrieves perpetual futures funding rates across six named venues, specifying the exact data returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices and get_dex_quotes by focusing on funding rates and arbitrage analysis.

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 is clear about what the tool does and its output, including arbitrage opportunities, which implies usage for spread analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context from sibling names provides indirect differentiation.

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

get_gas_pricesA

Get current gas prices across multiple chains: Ethereum, Base, Polygon, and Arbitrum. Returns slow/standard/fast tiers in gwei and estimated USD cost. Costs 0.001 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses a notable behavioral trait: costs 0.001 USDC per call via x402 micropayment on Base. However, without annotations, it does not cover other aspects like rate limits or error handling.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action and key details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential information (chains, tiers, cost). Could be more detailed on output structure, but sufficient for basic usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters in schema, so description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 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?

Clearly states it gets current gas prices across multiple specific chains (Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum) and specifies output tiers (slow/standard/fast) and units (gwei, USD cost). Distinct from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. Lacks any usage context.

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

profile_walletA

Generate a full portfolio profile for an Ethereum/Base wallet address. Returns token holdings, NFTs, DeFi positions, transaction history summary, PnL estimate, and risk profile score. Costs 0.008 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Ethereum or Base wallet address (0x...)
`chain`	No	Filter by chain (e.g. "ethereum", "base", "arbitrum", "polygon"). Defaults to "all".

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the cost (0.008 USDC per call) but lacks information on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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?

The description is two sentences: first sentence defines purpose and outputs, second sentence states cost. It is front-loaded with no extraneous information, earning every word.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lists all major output categories (token holdings, NFTs, DeFi positions, tx history summary, PnL estimate, risk profile score), which is sufficient given no output schema. However, it could note the time range for history or that it's a snapshot, but this is minor.

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 the schema already describes the parameters. The description adds value by noting the cost, but does not provide additional parameter-specific context beyond what the schema offers.

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 generates a full portfolio profile for an Ethereum/Base wallet address and lists specific outputs (token holdings, NFTs, DeFi positions, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices or scan_token.

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 implies usage for wallet profiling but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings (e.g., scan_token for single token analysis) or when not to use it. Context signals show sibling tools cover different functions, but no exclusions are stated.

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

scan_tokenA

Perform a security scan on a token contract. Detects rug-pull risks, honeypot patterns, ownership concentration, mint authority, and other red flags. Costs 0.003 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	Token contract address (0x...) or symbol (e.g. "PEPE", "UNI")
`chain`	No	Chain to scan on (e.g. "ethereum", "base", "arbitrum", "polygon"). Defaults to "ethereum".

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool detects and the cost. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe (no modifications), but that is implied by 'scan'. The description is sufficiently transparent for a scan operation, though it could mention idempotency or side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose and cost/micropayment detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no output schema, and 2 fully-described parameters, the description is complete. It lists the detection categories, which compensates for the lack of output schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Perform a security scan on a token contract.' It lists specific red flags detected (rug-pull risks, honeypot patterns, etc.), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_crypto_prices, get_dex_quotes, etc.) which are unrelated.

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: it's a security scan with a cost of 0.003 USDC per call on Base. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor are there exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for token safety assessment, which is adequate.

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

scan_yieldsA

Scan top DeFi yield opportunities across protocols: Aave, Compound, Morpho, Lido, Pendle, and more. Filter by chain, asset, and minimum TVL. Returns APY, TVL, risk score, and protocol details. Costs 0.005 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	Blockchain to filter by (e.g. "ethereum", "base", "arbitrum", "polygon"). Omit for all chains.
`asset`	No	Filter by asset symbol (e.g. "ETH", "USDC", "stETH"). Omit for all assets.
`min_tvl`	No	Minimum TVL in USD (e.g. 1000000 for $1M). Omit for no minimum.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (1–50). Defaults to 20.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the cost (0.005 USDC per call) and what the tool returns (APY, TVL, risk score). It is a read operation, and no contradictions exist. Could mention rate limits or data freshness, but sufficient.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and protocols, second lists filters, outputs, and cost. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (APY, TVL, risk score, protocol details) and mentions cost. Could specify ranking logic or data source, but it's reasonably complete for a scanning tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining that results include APY, TVL, risk score, and protocol details—information not in the schema. The description reinforces the filter options but does not add new parameter-level details.

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 scans top DeFi yields across specific protocols (Aave, Compound, etc.) and lists filtering options and output fields. It distinguishes well from sibling tools covering prices, quotes, and gas.

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 when to use (for DeFi yield opportunities) and lists filters, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. However, sibling tools are distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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

track_whalesA

Analyze whale activity and holder concentration for a token. Returns top holders, Gini coefficient, whale alerts (large recent buys/sells), and distribution breakdown. Costs 0.005 USDC per call (x402 micropayment on Base).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	Token contract address (0x...) or symbol (e.g. "ETH", "PEPE")
`chain`	No	Chain to query (e.g. "ethereum", "base", "solana", "arbitrum"). Defaults to "ethereum".

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the cost ('0.005 USDC per call') and the x402 micropayment, which is useful. However, it does not describe failure modes, rate limits, or whether the tool is destructive/read-only. Some transparency but incomplete.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes essential information (returns and cost). No fluff, every sentence adds value. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return types but lacks details on response format, error handling, or pagination. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline score 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze whale activity and holder concentration for a token.' It lists specific outputs (top holders, Gini coefficient, whale alerts, distribution breakdown), which distinguishes it from siblings like scan_token or profile_wallet. The verb 'analyze' and resource are specific.

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 implicitly suggests when to use (for whale activity analysis) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives (e.g., use scan_token for general token info). Lacks explicit guidance, though the purpose is clear.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

8 tool updatesv1.0.3Mar 13, 2026
- First observedget_crypto_prices
- First observedget_dex_quotes
- First observedget_funding_rates
- First observedget_gas_prices
- First observedprofile_wallet
- First observedscan_token
- First observedscan_yields
- First observedtrack_whales

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain (prices, DEX quotes, funding rates, gas, wallet profiling, token security, yield scanning, whale tracking) with no functional overlap, ensuring clear differentiation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming mixes 'get_' prefix (5 tools) with other verbs ('profile_', 'scan_', 'track_'), breaking a uniform pattern, though all use lowercase underscores and are descriptive.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is ideal for the broad but focused crypto data domain—enough to cover key areas without overwhelming or being too sparse.

Completeness4/5

Covers core crypto data (prices, quotes, yields, gas, security, whales, wallet) with minor gaps like historical price or native token metadata, but ample for typical informational needs.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

WarpPay402 Gateway C
com.warppay402.api
Production-grade MCP gateway delivering 8 real-time AI tools with instant x402 micropayments settled in USDC on Base Mainnet or SPL-USDC on Solana. Features Basescan contract auditing, wallet analytics, headless browser scraping, and pre-scraped oracle data feeds.
Autonomous Agents Browser Automation Web3 & Decentralized Tech
152
WarpPay402 Gateway CDeprecated
com.warppay402.api
Production-grade MCP gateway delivering 8 real-time AI tools with instant x402 micropayments settled in USDC on Base Mainnet or SPL-USDC on Solana. Features Basescan contract auditing, wallet analytics, headless browser scraping, and pre-scraped oracle data feeds.
Autonomous Agents Browser Automation Web3 & Decentralized Tech
151
Concierge Intel B
xyz.conc-exe
Pay-per-call DeFi and macro intel for AI agents. x402 USDC tools via streamable HTTP /api/mcp.
Finance Blockchain
2
Alien Plugg x402 API B
io.github.michaelhutchings626-hub
32 paid x402 endpoints for crypto, Zora & on-chain analysis. 10 MCP tools. USDC on Base.
Cryptocurrency Blockchain Web3 & Decentralized Tech
101

Related MCP Servers

x402 On-Chain Data MCP Server
Blockchain Cryptocurrency Web3 & Decentralized Tech
0xEtherial
F
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Pay-per-call MCP server for on-chain blockchain data including wallet profiles, token metrics, protocol TVL, and gas prices.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-03 17:59 UTC)
5
-
oom-x402-mcpofficial
Research & Data AI & Machine Learning Finance
OrdersOfMagnitudeLLC
F
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
MCP server exposing 1,000+ pay-per-call API endpoints across agent infrastructure (memory, coordination, secrets, verification), data, compute, finance, weather, geography, and reference categories — payments via x402 protocol in USDC on Base.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-01 12:04 UTC)
-
x402farm-mcp
Cryptocurrency Blockchain Web Scraping
laurenthalbrun
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server that provides AI agents with pay-per-call access to a suite of tools (honeypot check, token market, DeFi yields, etc.) via USDC on Base using the x402 protocol.
Updated a month ago (2026-07-29 01:15 UTC)
4
MIT
AgentServices
Cryptocurrency Blockchain AI & Machine Learning
vbkotecha
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server providing 50+ crypto, market intelligence, and AI inference endpoints with x402 pay-per-request micropayments on Base.
Updated a day ago (2026-09-04 17:02 UTC)
1
Apache 2.0

Appeared in Searches

A server for finding information about Delphi (programming language or ancient Greek oracle site)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/fernsugi/x402-api-mcp-server'

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

@x402-api/mcp-server

Tools

Quick Start

Option A: Inspect mode (no payment needed)

Option B: Auto-pay mode (fully autonomous)

Claude Desktop Integration

Without auto-pay (inspect mode)

With auto-pay

Environment Variables

How x402 Payments Work

Tool Reference

get_crypto_prices

get_gas_prices

get_dex_quotes

scan_token

track_whales

scan_yields

get_funding_rates

profile_wallet

Development

Links

License

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

oom-x402-mcpofficial

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

`get_crypto_prices`

`get_gas_prices`

`get_dex_quotes`

`scan_token`

`track_whales`

`scan_yields`

`get_funding_rates`

`profile_wallet`