read_feedRead a curated crypto feed by its id (from list_feeds). Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary). Optionally filter items by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Curated feed id (from list_feeds). | |
| limit | No | Max items (1-50, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword filter over item title/summary. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "coindesk"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "cointelegraph",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "ethereum"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds the return item structure and optional filter behavior, which go beyond the annotations and schema.
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 succinct sentences that front-load the core action, then provide output details and optional filtering. No waste or redundancy.
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 read-only tool with strong annotations and complete schema coverage, the description adequately explains the return format and filtering capability. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a 'limit' parameter in the schema.
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 descriptive parameter entries for feed, limit, and query. The tool description reiterates the feed id and keyword filter but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the tool reads a curated crypto feed by id, specifies the output as normalized items with fields (title, link, published, summary), and references list_feeds as the source of feed ids. This distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_feed by emphasizing 'curated' and 'normalized'.
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?
It provides context that the feed id comes from list_feeds and mentions optional keyword filtering, implying a workflow of first listing feeds then reading one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a read tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools are nearly indistinguishable in role: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are all variants of the same router, with the beta version explicitly noted as currently identical to the stable one. The six Polymarket tools also overlap heavily around edge-finding, arbitrage, and fill-risk analysis, making misselection likely.
Names are uniformly snake_case and groupable into prefixes like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*, but the set does not follow a consistent verb_noun convention. Noun-first names like entity_profile and recent_alerts sit alongside verb-first names like read_feed and validate_claim, and product-name suffixes such as ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded add further inconsistency.
At 34 tools, the surface is well past the 25+ threshold and far broader than the 'Crypto Feeds' name suggests. The set spans feed reading, general data research, prediction markets, AI-brand visibility audits, npm dependency scanning, memory, and subscriptions, making it feel like a platform-wide dump rather than a focused MCP server.
The broad research workflow is well covered with query, grounded answer, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, fact-checking, and entity resolution. However, feed functionality is read-only with no feed management, subscription types do not include crypto feeds despite the server name, and there is no dedicated tool for resolving the advertised pipeworx:// citation URIs.