navi-x402-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.2
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping purposes: url_preview, page_context, and web_intelligence all analyze web pages with varying depth, and crypto_indicator/crypto_health/hype_signal/hype_engine all cover crypto metrics. An agent could easily select the wrong tool despite the descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'navi_<domain>_<feature>' naming convention with snake_case. The prefix is uniform and readable. This is a coherent pattern.
Tool Count4/5
15 tools is at the high end of the recommended range, but the server covers a broad set of unrelated utility domains (web, crypto, weather, translation, etc.), so the count is defensible. However, some tools are redundant in purpose, so the effective scope feels slightly larger than necessary.
Completeness3/5
The server's mixed-purpose nature makes it hard to assess completeness. There are no obvious dead ends, but the overlap between web intelligence tools suggests the set could be refined. Core utilities like time, FX, and translation are present, but the lack of a unified domain means gaps are unclear.
Average 4.2/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it discloses the paid nature ($0.005 USDC per call), the structured response shape with specific fields (links_summary, boolean signals, next actions), and special handling for GitHub/GitLab pages. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the extra context is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core value proposition ('Production-grade web page intelligence'), then enumerates key features compactly. The pricing sentence is useful but the 'Clean v2 response shape' is vague and adds little. Overall, it earns its length.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description does a good job of conveying what the response will contain: an analysis block, repo information, link taxonomy, links_summary, next actions, and 16+ boolean signals. It also mentions the cost. It could be more precise about the exact response schema, but it's adequate for 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 a clear parameter description for 'url'. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it mentions GitHub/GitLab pages in the output, but that's about the response, not the parameter). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates it provides web page intelligence with a structured analysis block, listing specific output components like repo sub-object and link taxonomy. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'analyze' or 'extract') and does not distinguish it from the sibling navi_web_intelligence, making the purpose clear but not fully distinct.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It states 'for AI agents' but does not mention when this deep page analysis is preferred over a lightweight preview (navi_url_preview) or broader intelligence (navi_web_intelligence).
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool is paid ($0.01 USDC per call via x402, auto-settled), proprietary, deterministic, and LLM-free, giving the agent important cost and reliability context. It doesn't discuss failure modes or output formatting, but for a read-only analytics tool, this is a solid level of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fundamentals engine for the HYPE token') and then enumerates metrics and outputs. While it is grammatically a run-on, every clause adds substantive information, and there is no filler. It could be split into two sentences, but it remains concise and focused.
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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value: scores on three axes, a recommendation, and buy-zone detection. It also covers pricing, methodology, and deterministic nature. It lacks a sample response or definitions of the axes, but for a no-parameter tool with this level of detail, it is nearly complete.
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 parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds value by explaining the methodology and outputs rather than input semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a fundamentals engine for the HYPE token, listing specific outputs (price, funding, OI, valuation percentile, etc.) and the synthesized recommendation. It distinguishes itself by being HYPE-specific and scoring into three named axes. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieves', 'calculates') and doesn't differentiate from siblings like navi_hype_signal beyond implication.
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 conveys the use case: analyzing HYPE fundamentals for investment/trading decisions. It implies this is for when a holistic, deterministic, paid analysis is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives such as navi_hype_signal or navi_crypto_health, leaving the boundary between sibling tools unclear.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the payment mechanism (x402, $0.003 USDC) and outlines the exact data returned, including an agent reading guide. It does not mention rate limits or error behaviors, but for a simple read-only tool, this is reasonably transparent.
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 compact and front-loaded, with two sentences covering the core purpose, valid inputs, and payment details. Every phrase adds value, and there is no wasted verbiage. The structure is clear: first the deliverable, then the input enum and cost.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool returns (current value, history, thresholds, guide). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning data freshness or error cases, but the essential information is present for an agent to select and invoke the 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'name' parameter and its valid values. The description also lists the valid names, but it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not compensate with extra context.
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 provides a deep dive on one crypto macro indicator, listing all returned components (definition, formula, thresholds, current value, stats, history, guide). The explicit list of valid indicator names distinguishes it from sibling tools like navi_crypto_prices or navi_crypto_health, which cover different domains.
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 the tool is for macro indicator analysis, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as navi_crypto_prices or navi_market_report. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, only the implied context from the tool's purpose.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is AI-generated, uses real-time data, and crucially that it is a paid operation via x402 with a cost of $0.02 USDC per call on Base, settled automatically. This gives the agent important behavioral context about external dependencies and cost, though it does not cover rate limits or failure modes.
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 concise and effective: two sentences that front-load the purpose and process, then add the necessary cost information. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary technical detail.
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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: input, process, cost, and output content. It lacks explicit output format information, but for a report-generation tool, the core usage context is covered well enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 description already fully covers the single 'coins' parameter (comma-separated IDs, default values). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 identifies the tool as an AI-generated cryptocurrency market analysis report, with specific steps (fetches real-time prices from CoinGecko, uses Claude AI) and content (trends, risks, opportunities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like navi_crypto_prices or navi_crypto_indicator by emphasizing a comprehensive analysis report rather than raw data or indicators.
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 this tool is for generating a market analysis report, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like navi_crypto_prices. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so usage guidance is present only by implication.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature with 'x402: $0.005 USDC per call', the use of 'Claude Haiku tool_use', and 'Zero-transform' processing. However, it does not mention failure modes, limitations (e.g., dynamic pages, paywalls), or rate limits. The cost and internal analysis dependency are valuable transparency beyond the schema.
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 dense yet efficient: each sentence conveys a distinct aspect (what it extracts, what AI analysis it generates, return signals, time-saving, and pricing). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. The parenthetical pricing note is compact and does not distract.
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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It enumerates key output categories (summary, entities, classification, boolean signals) and cost, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. However, it does not specify the exact response structure or edge-case behaviors, leaving a minor gap in completeness.
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% – the single 'url' parameter is already described with an example in the schema. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond the overall purpose. It reinforces that a URL is expected but provides no extra syntax, format, or edge-case guidance. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 specific verbs and resources: 'Extracts OpenGraph + Twitter Card + Article metadata + JSON-LD structured data', 'Generates AI analysis', 'Returns 16+ boolean signals'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'One call replaces 7 agent steps', implying it is a comprehensive analysis tool unlike simpler utilities.
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 context: for web page intelligence with summary, entities, and classification. It states 'One call replaces 7 agent steps', suggesting when to use it, but does not explicitly name alternatives or cover exclusions such as when to use navi_url_preview instead. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing behavior, including usage-based scaling, the 402 payment challenge, and the payment mechanism (x402, USDC on Base). This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but for a paid translation tool it is quite transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with pricing details. It is slightly verbose due to repetition of pricing information ('Usage-based pricing' and the parenthetical about x402), but still remains reasonably concise and scannable.
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 simple two-parameter translation tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value ('high-quality translation'), the cost structure, and the payment flow. It could mention the exact response format, but that's not critical given the simplicity.
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% for both parameters (text and target_language), so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by mentioning that pricing scales with text length and target language, but it does not add essential meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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: 'AI-powered text translation between any languages.' It uses a specific verb (translate) and resource (text), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which cover unrelated domains like crypto, weather, and URL previews.
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 tells the user to 'Send text and target language' and what they will receive. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it, the sibling tools are so unrelated that the intended usage is clear. It could benefit from explicit alternatives, but context is sufficient.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data source (CoinGecko), output structure (price, change, market cap), and importantly discloses the per-call cost and settlement mechanism (x402, USDC on Base). This is valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are significant.
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 plus a short parenthetical. It leads with the core purpose, then adds data source and return fields, and ends with pricing. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, data source, and cost. It lacks details like coin ID format limitations or failure handling, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most use cases.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'coins' parameter, describing comma-separated coin IDs with an example. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond confirming the coin names, 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 the tool returns real-time cryptocurrency prices for major coins, and specifies the exact output fields (price, 24h change, market cap). It differentiates from siblings like navi_crypto_indicator by focusing on price quotes rather than technical indicators or health checks.
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 gives context that this provides current prices from CoinGecko and notes the paid nature with cost and settlement details. It implies use when needing real-time USD price data, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Clear enough for most scenarios.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking criteria (30-day usage, price fit, metadata quality), return fields (price, network, why_recommended), live data source, and the payment cost ($0.005 USDC per call) — important for agents to know this is a paid operation. It does not mention auth or side effects, but those are less relevant for a discovery 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then ranking/return details, then cost. Every sentence adds value — no filler or repetition of schema field names.
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 tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers return format (top 3, with price, network, why_recommended), ranking logic, and the paid nature. Minor omissions like error handling or behavior when no matches are found prevent a perfect score, but for the tool's complexity this is solid.
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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds 'Describe what you need' reinforcing the task parameter but provides no additional semantic detail for category or max_price beyond what the schema already states.
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 opens with 'Finds the best paid services for a task', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., navi_translate, navi_crypto_prices) by focusing on service discovery rather than direct task execution.
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: use this when you need a paid service ('Describe what you need') and returns ranked recommendations. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the use case is obvious and distinct from the other utility tools.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It goes beyond basic reading by disclosing the payment requirement ($0.003 USDC per call), how private documents are handled, and the output structure (typed columns, rows, pagination, optional formatting). This is helpful behavioral context, though it omits potential error or rate-limit 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 concise, two sentences, with the main function front-loaded. It efficiently includes the URL/ID input, output features, access requirements, and pricing without any fluff or repetition. Every sentence adds to the understanding of the tool.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return values (columns, rows, pagination, optional formatting). It also covers access requirements and payment behavior. Given the moderate complexity of a spreadsheet reader with 5 parameters and no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete, though it could hint at error behavior or the scope of supported spreadsheet types.
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 covers all 5 parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds a few semantic hints – 'paste the document URL or ID' for the url parameter and 'per-cell formatting' for the include_formatting flag – but overall it largely reinforces what the schema states. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 opens with 'Reads any shared online spreadsheet as typed JSON' – a specific verb, resource, and output format. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings, none of which mention spreadsheet reading, and provides the core functionality in a single 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?
It provides clear usage context: paste the URL or ID, works with view-only share links, and explains what happens for private documents ('get clear setup instructions before any payment'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use', but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
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 carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions the data source (Open-Meteo), the paid nature ($0.001 USDC per call on Base), and the output data types. This goes beyond minimal disclosure by flagging costs and real-time behavior, though it omits error handling or rate limits.
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 concise: two sentences plus a payment note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives input method and output details. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description lists key return fields (temperature, humidity, wind, precipitation, conditions) and the time range (3-day forecast). It also covers input options and payment. While it doesn't specify units or response structure, it enough for a weather 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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, giving the baseline of 3. The tool description repeats the idea of using 'city name or lat/lon coordinates' but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema. The schema already explains that lat/lon are used together and that location is an alternative.
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 a specific action: 'Real-time weather data and 3-day forecast for any location worldwide.' It names the resource (weather) and differentiates from sibling tools, none of which are weather-related. The verb 'returns' plus the list of output fields makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 accepts city name or lat/lon coordinates and returns weather info. It implies usage for any weather need, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references. Since no sibling tool handles weather, this is sufficient contextual guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description discloses the return format and the x402 payment requirement ($0.001 USDC per call, settled automatically), adding behavioral context beyond the schema. Does not address error handling or edge cases, but enough for a simple read-only 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: the first states function and outputs, the second states use cases and pricing. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded.
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 tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return payload, use cases, and cost. No significant gaps remain.
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 single timezone parameter is fully described in the schema with IANA examples and default value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema coverage.
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 returns current date, time, and timestamp for any timezone, and lists specific return values (UTC/local timestamps, unix epoch, day of week). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like weather or crypto 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?
Provides concrete use cases ('scheduling, logging, time-aware operations') and implies when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context is clear.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns metadata for public URLs, latency range (~300-800ms), and payment method/amount (x402 USDC). It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read-only preview tool, the disclosed information is substantial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes relevant details on cost, latency, and alternatives, but the structure is a bit run-on with the parenthetical payment info. All sentences earn their place, though some consolidation would improve clarity.
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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the expected return fields (title, description, image, favicon, site name, canonical URL, language). It also covers cost, latency, and the alternative tool, making it fully sufficient for a simple one-parameter 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 schema already fully documents the only parameter 'url' with the description 'Full URL to preview (http:// or https://)', so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'any public URL' context, which reinforces accessibility but does not introduce new parameter-level meaning.
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 names the tool as a 'Fast link preview extractor' and specifies exactly what it returns: OpenGraph/Twitter Card metadata (title, description, image, favicon, site name, canonical URL, language). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing speed and low cost for quick scanning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use: 'Perfect for agents that need to scan many links quickly before deciding which ones deserve deep analysis via /api/web-intelligence'. It also provides a cost comparison and names the alternative (deep analysis), making the distinction clear.
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?
Although no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden well by disclosing key behavioral traits: deterministic ('No LLM'), fast ('sub-second'), and paid ('$0.005 USDC per call'). It adds value beyond the empty schema, though it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only.
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 concise yet information-dense: four sentences cover indicators, scoring, verdict, performance, deep-dive availability, and pricing. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (purpose) is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values: each indicator scored favorable/neutral/unfavorable with exact values, plus a global risk_on/mixed/risk_off verdict. It also covers performance and pricing, making it complete for selecting and invoking 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 input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage (no parameters), so the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none 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 identifies the tool as a crypto market health check with 9 specific indicators, giving a clear verb ('health check') and resource ('crypto market'). It distinguishes from siblings like navi_crypto_indicator (per-indicator deep dives) and navi_crypto_prices (prices), making it unique.
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 implies when to use this tool (quick overall health snapshot) and hints at when not to (for per-indicator deep dives, which are available elsewhere). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (definition, buy/neutral/sell thresholds, raw inputs) and adds important behavioral context: 'Paid via x402: $0.005 USDC per call on Base, settled automatically.' It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a simple lookup tool this is adequate 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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and contents, the second provides the valid name list and cost note. No filler words; every part contributes to enabling agent invocation.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (definition, thresholds, raw inputs), which inputs are valid (full name list), and cost. There are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating many more valid names than the schema's examples ('fees-30d, revenue-annualized, ps-ratio, funding, market-share, price-7d, open-interest, volume-24h, tvl-bridge, hip3-rwa, buybacks-af, staking, auction-hip3, mcap-fdv, momentum-rsi'), giving agents a fuller understanding of acceptable values.
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 'Deep dive on one HYPE engine signal' with specific contents (definition, flywheel relevance, thresholds, raw inputs), distinguishing it from siblings like navi_hype_engine which presumably handles the entire engine. The list of valid names further clarifies the scope.
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 context is clear: this tool is for deep-diving on a single signal, and the valid names list guides which signal to pass. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use navi_hype_engine for an overview/aggregate view), so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses update frequency ('updated daily'), output contents ('rate of 1 USD against every supported currency plus the last-update timestamp'), authentication ('No API key required'), and pricing ('$0.002 USDC per call'). This is rich behavioral context.
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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second gives the use case, the third explains the output and cost. Front-loaded with the most important information, no 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, how often it updates, authentication, and cost. There are no glaring gaps.
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 parameters and the schema description covers 100% of the schema (empty object with a note that no parameters are needed). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description reinforces that no parameters are required, adding no confusion.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Real-time USD exchange rates to 160+ currencies.' Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like navi_crypto_prices by focusing on fiat FX rates, not 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?
Provides clear context for when to use: 'Useful for AI agents that pay in USDC and need to convert or display prices in other currencies.' Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well-defined.
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:

[![navi-x402-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mobileappbyharis/navi-x402-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mobileappbyharis/navi-x402-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![navi-x402-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mobileappbyharis/navi-x402-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mobileappbyharis/navi-x402-mcp)

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/mobileappbyharis/navi-x402-mcp'

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