Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@web3-daily-mcp Give me today's Web3 public digest"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for Web3 Daily - providing real-time Web3 research digest through standardized AI tool interface.
This MCP server exposes 4 tools:
Tool | Description |
| Get today's Web3 public digest (macro news + KOL sentiment + market data) |
| Get personalized digest based on wallet's on-chain behavior |
| Analyze wallet's on-chain behavior and investment style |
| Get current BTC/ETH prices and Fear & Greed Index |
Related MCP server: deeplook
Add to your openclaw.json:
{
"plugins": {
"entries": {
"web3-daily": {
"enabled": true,
"command": "npx",
"args": ["web3-daily-mcp"]
}
}
}
}Add to claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"web3-daily": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["web3-daily-mcp"]
}
}
}Add to MCP settings:
{
"web3-daily": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["web3-daily-mcp"]
}
}User: 给我今天的 Web3 日报
Agent: [calls get_public_digest with language="zh"]User: Give me today's Web3 digest
Agent: [calls get_public_digest with language="en"]User: My wallet is 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045, give me personalized digest
Agent: [calls get_personalized_digest with wallet_address and language]User: Analyze this wallet: 0x3a4e3c24720a1c11589289da99aa31de3f338bf9
Agent: [calls get_wallet_profile with wallet_address]The MCP server connects to the J4Y backend which aggregates:
170+ news sources (RSS feeds, The Block, CoinDesk, etc.)
50+ KOL Twitter accounts (Chinese + English)
Real-time market data (CoinGecko, Fear & Greed Index)
On-chain data via DeBank API
Public digest: No personal data required
Personalized features: Wallet address is sent to backend for analysis
Data retention: Wallet profiles cached for 24 hours, then refreshed
No permanent storage: We do not permanently store or sell wallet data
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Run in development mode
npm run dev
# Build for production
npm run build
# Start production server
npm startMIT
Get current crypto market overview including BTC/ETH prices and Fear & Greed Index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what the tool returns: current BTC/ETH prices and Fear & Greed Index. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, providing adequate transparency for a simple getter with zero parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it perfectly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies the exact data returned and implies a one-shot call. It doesn't mention return format or limitations, but these are not necessary for such a basic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no param-specific detail because none is needed. It appropriately avoids inventing parameter semantics that don't exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and specific resource ('crypto market overview') with concrete components (BTC/ETH prices and Fear & Greed Index). This unequivocally distinguishes it from siblings like get_public_digest and get_wallet_profile, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (when you need crypto market overview) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling names suggest distinct purposes, but no direct comparison is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get personalized Web3 digest based on your wallet's on-chain behavior. Includes holdings analysis, relevant news, and tailored recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Output language: zh (Chinese) or en (English) | zh |
| wallet_address | Yes | EVM wallet address (0x + 40 hex characters) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned content (holdings analysis, news, recommendations) but does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, mention error behavior, or address privacy implications of sending a wallet address. The verb 'Get' implicitly suggests a read-only action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no superfluous wording. Every phrase adds value by explaining purpose or content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the digest includes and the basis for personalization. It could mention error handling for invalid wallets or clarify relationship to sibling tools, but schema and context signals cover most gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description references 'wallet's on-chain behavior' which maps to wallet_address, but adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Language parameter is fully described via enum and default in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 personalized Web3 digest' based on wallet's on-chain behavior. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the emphasis on 'personalized' and 'wallet's on-chain behavior' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_public_digest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when a personalized digest is needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_public_digest or get_wallet_profile. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get today's Web3 public digest with macro news, KOL sentiment, and market data. No personal data required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Output language: zh (Chinese) or en (English) | zh |
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 public nature and lack of personal data, which is useful, but doesn't mention any auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. For a simple read tool, it provides adequate but not 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and content. No wasted words; effectively structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the digest content well and implies a read-only operation. It lacks explicit return format details, but for a simple public digest, the description is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single parameter (language) with enum and default. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'today's Web3 public digest' with specific content types (macro news, KOL sentiment, market data). The word 'public' and 'No personal data required' directly differentiate it from get_personalized_digest, and the content list distinguishes it from market overview and wallet profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for general public digest needs without personalization, explicitly noting 'No personal data required'. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the 'public' vs 'personalized' contrast provides clear context for when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Analyze a wallet's on-chain behavior and generate an investor profile. Includes holdings, transaction patterns, and investment style.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Output language: zh (Chinese) or en (English) | zh |
| force_update | No | Force regenerate profile (bypass 24h cache) | |
| wallet_address | Yes | EVM wallet address (0x + 40 hex characters) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only describes what the tool does, not its behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, caching behavior, or permissions. The force_update parameter hints at caching but the description itself does not address these aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by specific included items. There is no unnecessary content or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should clarify the return format but only lists content categories. It lacks information on response structure, potential errors, or how the profile is presented, which is a gap for a complex analysis tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions for wallet_address, language, and force_update. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('a wallet's on-chain behavior'), then lists the output ('investor profile') and its contents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on digests or market overview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this to generate an investor profile for a specific wallet, which is distinct from the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0get_market_overviewget_personalized_digestget_public_digestget_wallet_profileScored across 4 tools
Tools are mostly distinct, but get_public_digest and get_market_overview both include market data, which could cause minor confusion. However, each tool has a clearly different primary purpose (daily summary vs. specific market snapshot).
All tools follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a Web3 digest service, providing enough variety without overwhelming the agent.
The tool surface covers public and personalized digests, wallet analysis, and market overview. A minor gap is the lack of historical digests or detailed coin-specific data, but the core domain is well covered.
Real-time curated crypto news for AI agents with sentiment, recaps, and search.
Blockchain analytics API for AI agents. Smart Money signals, wallet profiling, token analytics.
Blockchain analytics API for AI agents. Smart Money signals, wallet profiling, token analytics.
Real-time digital asset narrative intelligence from 1,000+ curated media sources.
