Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
x402-btc-radar

x402-btc-radar

by gaodongmei478
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Single BTC project deep-dive ($0.05)

project_info
Read-only

Fetch structured analysis for one BTC radar project by slug, covering entry, signature needs, risks, and verdict; verify the slug from btc_radar_latest to avoid a 404.

Instructions

PAID $0.05 USDC on Base via x402, from the caller's own wallet. Structured analysis of one radar project by slug (what it is, entry, signature needs, risks, verdict). Use slugs from btc_radar_latest. Unknown slug returns 404 before payment. Not investment advice.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "project_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesproject slug, e.g. gpda

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses the price ($0.05 USDC on Base), the x402 payment rail, that funds come from the caller's own wallet, and that a bad slug 404s before payment is taken. The failure-before-charge detail is exactly the kind of financial-behavior context annotations cannot express, and readOnlyHint is consistent with a paid read.

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 tight sentences: cost/rail first, then what the analysis contains, then input sourcing and failure mode. Every clause carries decision-relevant information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of sketching the return payload and warning that unknown slugs 404 without charge. It stops short of describing the output shape or depth of the report (format, length, section structure), a minor gap for a paid single-record 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?

With 100% schema coverage (pattern, example "gpda"), the schema already defines the slug, so 3 is the floor. The description earns an extra point by stating where valid slugs come from (btc_radar_latest), which tells the agent how to source values rather than invent them.

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?

"Structured analysis of one radar project by slug" names a specific verb (analyze) and resource (one project), then enumerates the payload (what it is, entry, signature needs, risks, verdict). This cleanly separates it from btc_radar_latest (the discovery list) and token_risk (token-level risk), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

"Use slugs from btc_radar_latest" gives an explicit prerequisite and routes the agent to the sibling that produces valid input, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not say when to prefer token_risk or token_risk_batch instead, so the exclusions half of the guideline is absent.

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