mcp-coinbase

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: portfolio, transactions, buy, sell, wallet address, and prices. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for reads, buy_/sell_ for actions. Naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for Coinbase operations. Each tool serves a clear function without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
Core account management and trading workflows are covered: viewing balances, history, prices, buying, selling, and getting deposit address. Minor gaps exist (e.g., cancel order, send crypto) but these are not critical for a basic trading server.
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the need for COINBASE_EMAIL and COINBASE_PASSWORD environment variables. However, it does not describe the return format or pagination/limits beyond the schema, so transparency is partial.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the only critical prerequisite. No wasted 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and authentication requirement. However, it omits details about the response structure or any behavior around the limit parameter, leaving some gaps.
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?
The schema already fully describes the single 'limit' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the 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 'Get recent transaction history from Coinbase' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_portfolio, buy_crypto, and sell_crypto. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
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 (to retrieve recent transactions) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. It mentions the requirement for environment variables, which serves as a precondition but not as comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful requirement (COINBASE_EMAIL and COINBASE_PASSWORD environment variables) and the operation is inherently read-only based on the verb 'Get', but it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or return format. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.
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 then the prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.
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 a single well-described parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not describe the return value (e.g., address string format) or any error conditions. However, the purpose is clear and the complexity is low, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 baseline is 3. The description itself does not add extra detail beyond the schema; it only says 'for a cryptocurrency' while the schema already specifies the symbol parameter and examples. No additional semantic value is provided.
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 a Coinbase deposit address for a cryptocurrency, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio, get_transactions, or get_prices.
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 (when you need a deposit address) and provides a prerequisite (environment variables), but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key requirement: the need for COINBASE_EMAIL and COINBASE_PASSWORD environment variables. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention rate limits, or describe possible failure modes. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but this is not made explicit.
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 consists of two short sentences that are direct and free of filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and a critical prerequisite.
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 the tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and the key setup requirement. It does not detail the exact return format, but this is acceptable for a low-complexity tool. Overall, it offers sufficient context for an agent to decide and invoke the 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 tool has zero input parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds value by mentioning environment variables, which are relevant to how the tool operates, but these are not part of the input 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 states a specific action ('Get') and a clear resource ('your Coinbase portfolio balances and values'), which is distinct from sibling tools like get_transactions, buy_crypto, or get_prices. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives. While siblings exist (e.g., get_transactions for transaction history), the description does not provide any comparison, exclusions, or context for selection. The usage scenario is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the API is public and no authentication is required, which is a useful safety trait. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or the exact return format. This is a simple read-only operation, so the lack of deeper behavioral detail is a minimal gap, but it still does not fully cover the necessary transparency.
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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose and the key prerequisite (public API, no auth). Every word serves a purpose; there is no fluff or repetition, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Although the tool is simple and schema covers parameters, the description does not explain the return values or output format, and there is no output schema. This omission places a burden on the description to describe what the caller receives, which it fails to do. The description is otherwise complete for a basic price lookup, but the lack of return information prevents a higher score.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including defaults and examples. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, per the baseline for high schema coverage, the score is 3.
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 function: 'Get current cryptocurrency prices from Coinbase.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_portfolio or buy_crypto. The scope is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 by stating the tool uses a public API and requires no authentication, which helps an agent understand when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the environment variable requirements and the preview/execute modes, which adds value. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., irreversible real-money orders, fees, order types) that would be useful for a mutation 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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose, then provide essential details about confirm behavior and environment variables. 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?
The tool has a clear purpose, all parameters are documented in the schema, and the description covers the key behavioral distinction (preview vs execute) and prerequisites. No output schema is provided, so return value details are not required. This is sufficiently complete for a relatively simple buy tool.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for symbol, amount_usd, and confirm. The description repeats the confirm behavior but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Place a buy order for cryptocurrency on Coinbase.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sell_crypto (sell) and get_portfolio (read).
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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when buying crypto) and explains the confirm parameter for preview vs execution. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for buy actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses that execution is gated by confirm, that preview is default, and that environment variables are required. However, it does not detail order types or execution 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior and prerequisites. 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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, but the description covers purpose, preview/execution, and prerequisites. Missing return-value detail is a minor gap.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description adds no extra information beyond reiterating the confirm behavior already documented.
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 uses the specific verb 'Place' with the object 'a sell order for cryptocurrency on Coinbase,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'buy_crypto'.
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?
It provides explicit guidance on the confirm parameter (preview vs. execute), but does not explicitly name alternatives like buy_crypto or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-coinbase MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-coinbase/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-coinbase)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-coinbase MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-coinbase/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-coinbase)

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/markswendsen-code/mcp-coinbase'

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