A
licenseNot graded
qualityA
maintenanceProvides read-only MCP tools for market snapshots, position risk, order reconciliation, and daily report previews with deterministic financial calculations, evidence chains, and audit trails.
MIT
Riptide — public risk and event research
Server Details
Read-only paper risk evidence and policy-gated committed event research. No real orders.
Ownership verified
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
7 toolsriptide_allocationAllocationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Latest allocation committed by the independent daily paper job.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| schema | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| available | No | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| real_orders | Yes | |
| generated_at | Yes | |
| execution_mode | Yes |
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by indicating the value is 'committed' by a 'daily paper job', signaling a settled, periodically refreshed value rather than a live or provisional one. This does not contradict the annotations.
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 key concept, 'Latest allocation', and adds only the necessary qualifiers about commitment and the daily paper job. It has no filler or redundant repetition of the title.
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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive and the provenance of that value. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly position this against siblings like riptide_paper_record or riptide_overview, although the resource name and qualifiers largely cover that.
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 there is no parameter information the description needs to provide. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because nothing is missing from the input side.
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 resource ('allocation') and its scope ('latest...committed by the independent daily paper job'), distinguishing it from crypto, event, and risk siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit retrieval verb like 'Returns' or 'Gets', so it misses the top bar.
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 phrase 'Latest allocation' implies this tool should be used when the most recent committed allocation is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not mention prerequisites or direct the agent to any sibling tool when a different kind of data is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
riptide_crypto_recordCrypto RecordBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Separate toy crypto strategy paper record and honesty boundary.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| schema | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| available | No | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| real_orders | Yes | |
| generated_at | Yes | |
| execution_mode | Yes |
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful notion that this is a 'toy' strategy record and an 'honesty boundary', but the phrase is vague and does not explain what behavior or data boundary actually exists.
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 compact phrase with no filler or repeated annotation content. It front-loads the distinctive qualifiers 'sepArate' and 'toy', though it is grammatically a fragment rather than a full sentence.
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 zero-param, readOnly tool with an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. It names the intended domain and hints at a boundary, but 'honesty boundary' is left unexplained and the relationship to riptide_paper_record could be clearer.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. The 100% schema description coverage means nothing is undocumented; the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as concerning a 'toy crypto strategy paper record' and an 'honesty boundary', which adds context beyond the bare name. However, it lacks an explicit verb or clear action, so an agent cannot confidently tell whether this tool returns the record, enforces the boundary, or describes a status.
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 word 'sepArate' loosely implies this tool is distinct from other paper-record/strategy tools, and sibling names like riptide_paper_record give some context. Still, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus an alternative, nor any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
riptide_event_marketsEvent MarketsCRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Policy-gated committed Event Intelligence availability, eligible quotes, and gaps.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| schema | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| available | No | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| real_orders | Yes | |
| generated_at | Yes | |
| execution_mode | Yes |
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'Policy-gated' (access control) and 'committed' (data finality/state) which provide some extra context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like whether the tool returns partial results or what 'Event Intelligence' means.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence, so it is concise in length. However, it is not well-structured; it is a dense noun phrase with stacked modifiers ('Policy-gated committed Event Intelligence availability...') that obscures meaning. It lacks front-loaded clarity, making it harder to parse than if it were a clear verb-first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple (0 params) and has an output schema, the description still fails to explain what the tool's purpose is in a way an agent can act on. 'Event Intelligence' is undefined, and the description does not communicate what kind of data or domain this covers. An agent cannot know when to call this tool without additional context.
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 has full coverage (100% vacuous). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. It adds no parameter information, but none is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun phrase without a clear verb or resource. It only states 'Policy-gated committed Event Intelligence availability, eligible quotes, and gaps', which does not explicitly say what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, list, query). It is essentially a restatement of the title 'Event Markets' with extra jargon, so an agent cannot infer the tool's exact function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, contexts, or conditions under which this tool should be selected. An agent is left without any direction on how to distinguish this from riptide_overview or riptide_risk_evidence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
riptide_methodologyMethodologyARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Public methodology, safety boundaries, and canonical links.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| schema | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| available | No | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| real_orders | Yes | |
| generated_at | Yes | |
| execution_mode | Yes |
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'public' access context and 'canonical links' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as static output, external references, or response structure. No contradiction with annotations.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase is meaningful for identifying the tool's content.
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 empty input schema, safe annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple reference tool. It could specify what 'canonical links' refer to, but this is a minor gap.
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 is complete, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add here.
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 names the resource: public methodology, safety boundaries, and canonical links. It lacks an explicit verb, but it is specific enough to identify what the tool provides and is distinct in scope from the sibling tools.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for retrieving methodology or safety reference material. However, the description never states when to choose it over alternatives or provides any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
riptide_overviewOverviewBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Riptide health, latest allocation, both paper records, and links.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| schema | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| available | No | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| real_orders | Yes | |
| generated_at | Yes | |
| execution_mode | Yes |
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope but no further behavioral context such as data freshness, aggregation logic, or limitations; this is acceptable but not exceptional.
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 very short and front-loads the key content categories, with no filler. However, the telegraphic phrasing ('both paper records, and links') is slightly cryptic and could be clearer as a complete sentence.
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?
Given zero parameters, an output schema, and safe annotations, the description is mostly adequate for invoking the tool. It falls short on clarifying how this overview relates to sibling tools and what 'links' refers to, which matters because the tool aggregates content that several siblings also cover.
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 input schema fully defines the invocation surface. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description lists content categories ('Riptide health, latest allocation, both paper records, and links') and signals an aggregate overview, but it is a noun phrase with no action verb such as 'provides' or 'returns'. It loosely distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning allocation and paper records, but does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like riptide_allocation or riptide_paper_record. The description does not mislead, but it leaves the agent to infer usage from the content list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
riptide_paper_recordPaper RecordARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Verified core paper equity, return, drawdown, and recent curve.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| schema | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| available | No | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| real_orders | Yes | |
| generated_at | Yes | |
| execution_mode | Yes |
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Verified' and 'core' as qualitative context, but does not explain what 'verified' means or describe any behavioral aspects like data freshness or return structure. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not enriching.
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 seven words, front-loaded with the most identifying term ('Verified core paper'), and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the fragment is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool that has an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the exact data domain and quality cache. The only gap is that it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over its siblings, but 'paper' and 'core' imply the boundary enough for a simple no-arg lookup.
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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description need not add parameter-level detail. It instead names the output-ish content, which 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 identifies a specific resource — paper trading metrics — with content scope ('equity, return, drawdown, and recent curve') and a quality qualifier ('Verified'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly saying 'paper' versus crypto, allocation, or event markets. However, it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it reads as a label rather than a full action statement.
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 about when to use this tool versus riptide_crypto_record, riptide_allocation, or riptide_overview. The word 'paper' implies a distinction, but no explicit condition or alternative is stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
riptide_risk_evidenceRisk EvidenceARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Latest defensive coverage aggregate, without raw breach text.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| schema | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| available | No | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| real_orders | Yes | |
| generated_at | Yes | |
| execution_mode | Yes |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it indicates freshness ('Latest') and content boundaries ('defensive coverage aggregate, without raw breach text'). This complements the readOnly and idempotent hints without contradicting them.
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 one short sentence with the core noun phrase front-loaded and the key exclusion stated immediately. Every word earns its place.
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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns, its freshness, and its exclusion of raw breach text. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?
There are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description carries no parameter burden. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 states the tool provides the latest defensive coverage aggregate and explicitly excludes raw breach text. It identifies the resource and scope, though it lacks a direct verb and does not name sibling tools for differentiation.
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 phrase 'without raw breach text' implies when this tool is appropriate versus a raw-text alternative, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or names alternatives. Usage context is only weakly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
7 tool updates
- Changed
riptide_allocation1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": true, + "properties": { + "available": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "disclaimer": { + "minLength": 1, + "type": "string" + }, + "error": { + "type": "string" + }, + "execution_mode": { + "enum": [ + "paper_only", + "read_only" + ] + }, + "generated_at": { + "format": "date-time", + "type": "string" + }, + "kind": { + "const": "allocation", + "type": "string" + }, + "product": { + "const": "riptide" + }, + "real_orders": { + "const": false + }, + "schema": { + "const": "riptide.public.v1" + } + }, + "required": [ + "schema", + "product", + "kind", + "generated_at", + "execution_mode", + "real_orders", + "disclaimer" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
riptide_crypto_record1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": true, + "properties": { + "available": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "disclaimer": { + "minLength": 1, + "type": "string" + }, + "error": { + "type": "string" + }, + "execution_mode": { + "enum": [ + "paper_only", + "read_only" + ] + }, + "generated_at": { + "format": "date-time", + "type": "string" + }, + "kind": { + "const": "crypto_record", + "type": "string" + }, + "product": { + "const": "riptide" + }, + "real_orders": { + "const": false + }, + "schema": { + "const": "riptide.public.v1" + } + }, + "required": [ + "schema", + "product", + "kind", + "generated_at", + "execution_mode", + "real_orders", + "disclaimer" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
riptide_event_markets1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": true, + "properties": { + "available": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "disclaimer": { + "minLength": 1, + "type": "string" + }, + "error": { + "type": "string" + }, + "execution_mode": { + "enum": [ + "paper_only", + "read_only" + ] + }, + "generated_at": { + "format": "date-time", + "type": "string" + }, + "kind": { + "const": "event_markets", + "type": "string" + }, + "product": { + "const": "riptide" + }, + "real_orders": { + "const": false + }, + "schema": { + "const": "riptide.public.v1" + } + }, + "required": [ + "schema", + "product", + "kind", + "generated_at", + "execution_mode", + "real_orders", + "disclaimer" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
riptide_methodology1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": true, + "properties": { + "available": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "disclaimer": { + "minLength": 1, + "type": "string" + }, + "error": { + "type": "string" + }, + "execution_mode": { + "enum": [ + "paper_only", + "read_only" + ] + }, + "generated_at": { + "format": "date-time", + "type": "string" + }, + "kind": { + "const": "methodology", + "type": "string" + }, + "product": { + "const": "riptide" + }, + "real_orders": { + "const": false + }, + "schema": { + "const": "riptide.public.v1" + } + }, + "required": [ + "schema", + "product", + "kind", + "generated_at", + "execution_mode", + "real_orders", + "disclaimer" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
riptide_overview1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": true, + "properties": { + "available": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "disclaimer": { + "minLength": 1, + "type": "string" + }, + "error": { + "type": "string" + }, + "execution_mode": { + "enum": [ + "paper_only", + "read_only" + ] + }, + "generated_at": { + "format": "date-time", + "type": "string" + }, + "kind": { + "const": "overview", + "type": "string" + }, + "product": { + "const": "riptide" + }, + "real_orders": { + "const": false + }, + "schema": { + "const": "riptide.public.v1" + } + }, + "required": [ + "schema", + "product", + "kind", + "generated_at", + "execution_mode", + "real_orders", + "disclaimer" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
riptide_paper_record1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": true, + "properties": { + "available": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "disclaimer": { + "minLength": 1, + "type": "string" + }, + "error": { + "type": "string" + }, + "execution_mode": { + "enum": [ + "paper_only", + "read_only" + ] + }, + "generated_at": { + "format": "date-time", + "type": "string" + }, + "kind": { + "const": "paper_record", + "type": "string" + }, + "product": { + "const": "riptide" + }, + "real_orders": { + "const": false + }, + "schema": { + "const": "riptide.public.v1" + } + }, + "required": [ + "schema", + "product", + "kind", + "generated_at", + "execution_mode", + "real_orders", + "disclaimer" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
riptide_risk_evidence1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": true, + "properties": { + "available": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "disclaimer": { + "minLength": 1, + "type": "string" + }, + "error": { + "type": "string" + }, + "execution_mode": { + "enum": [ + "paper_only", + "read_only" + ] + }, + "generated_at": { + "format": "date-time", + "type": "string" + }, + "kind": { + "const": "risk_evidence", + "type": "string" + }, + "product": { + "const": "riptide" + }, + "real_orders": { + "const": false + }, + "schema": { + "const": "riptide.public.v1" + } + }, + "required": [ + "schema", + "product", + "kind", + "generated_at", + "execution_mode", + "real_orders", + "disclaimer" + ], + "type": "object" +}
1 tool update
- Added
riptide_event_markets
6 tool updates
- First observed
riptide_allocation - First observed
riptide_crypto_record - First observed
riptide_methodology - First observed
riptide_overview - First observed
riptide_paper_record - First observed
riptide_risk_evidence
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Read-only checks for proposed orders against evidence and policy; no trading or payment authority.
21Read-only discovery and bounded access to a finite market briefing with evidence boundaries.
Read-only discovery for a finite, offline-capable market briefing with explicit evidence boundaries.
Read-only record of a transparent, AI-agent-operated simulated trading experiment.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceProvides read-only investment research and audit tools for validating ETF snapshots, comparing ETF structures, and auditing backtest reports, while strictly excluding any order or trading capabilities.41MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceRead-only MCP server that provides enterprise research frameworks, frozen snapshots, and historical factor summaries with sources and falsification conditions, without trading advice.61MIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables agents to generate alpha signals, retrieve market snapshots, compute portfolio risk, validate and submit paper orders, and trigger a kill switch, all under deterministic pre-trade risk controls and audit logging.5-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct information area: allocation, crypto record, event markets, methodology, overview, paper record, and risk evidence. The main potential confusion is that riptide_overview aggregates the latest allocation and both paper records, but the descriptions clarify that it is the summary view while the others provide focused details.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the same riptide_ prefix with a clear lowercase noun-phrase pattern. This is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a public research and status server. Each tool represents a meaningful, non-redundant surface area, and the count is appropriate for the stated domain.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core public surface: overview, allocations, paper records, crypto record, event market availability, methodology, and risk evidence. A minor gap is the lack of historical detail or raw risk event data, but that appears intentional based on the safety boundaries described.