crypto_prices_preview
FREE 1-item sample of live token prices. No payment required.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
tech-risk
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool provides a free sample of 1 item, which is a key behavioral trait (limited to 1 token). It doesn't mention caching or data freshness, but the core limitation is clear.
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 sentence of 8 words, very concise. Every word adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing what is sampled). Still efficient and front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format or what 'live token prices' means. It doesn't specify which tokens are sampled or the output structure. For a tool with no parameters, this is a gap. Partially 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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no param detail but doesn't need to.
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 it provides a 'FREE 1-item sample of live token prices.' The verb 'sample' and object 'token prices' are specific. It distinguishes from the sibling 'crypto_prices' by being a preview/free sample, so purpose is well-defined.
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 explicitly mentions 'FREE' and 'No payment required,' guiding usage for cost-free testing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the preview nature implies it's for exploration. Clear context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are organized into clear families (chain, crypto, defi, pm, enrich, scan) and each targets a distinct data type. The preview tools are explicitly labeled as free samples, reducing but not eliminating confusion with their paid counterparts. Some overlap exists between chain_wallet and chain_balance, and between enrich_domain and enrich_tech_risk, but descriptions clarify the difference.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern using snake_case (chain_balance, crypto_funding, enrich_domain). Preview tools consistently append '_preview' to their paid counterpart. The only minor variation is abbreviations like 'tx', 'pm', 'defi', but these are uniform.
Tool Count3/5
At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The eight preview tools duplicate the functionality of their paid versions and inflate the count, though they serve a legitimate 'try before pay' purpose. The remaining 14 paid tools cover a wide range of risk data, making the count borderline appropriate.
Completeness4/5
The set covers on-chain balances, token security, DeFi yields, crypto prices, funding rates, prediction markets, domain enrichment, tech-risk CVE scanning, and MCP server auditing, which is a comprehensive risk toolkit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical data, no address reputation, no token price by address), but the core workflows are well covered.