Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Universal Crypto MCP

Universal Crypto MCP

by nirholas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

marketplace_tool_revenue

Retrieve weekly and monthly revenue stats and pending payouts for any tool by providing its ID. Track earnings and payout status.

Instructions

Get revenue information for a tool including weekly/monthly stats and pending payouts.

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": {
      "toolId": "<toolId>"
    },
    "name": "marketplace_tool_revenue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolIdYesTool ID to check revenue for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 only states that it returns revenue information, but does not mention read-only nature, response format, pagination, caching, permissions, or other operational traits. The minimal disclosure is not sufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the complexity of the operation.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core function but does not describe the expected response structure or clarify any edge cases. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the single parameter (toolId), with a clear description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or syntax details beyond the schema, 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 states the tool gets revenue information for a specific tool, mentioning weekly/monthly stats and pending payouts. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling marketplace tools by the specific data it provides.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of marketplace-related sibling tools (e.g., marketplace_creator_analytics, marketplace_tool_insights), there is no explanation of scenarios where this tool is preferred or not.

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