cleartrace

{
  "id": "aix_3b71b07f47",
  "name": "cleartrace",
  "operator": "(unclaimed - source: registry-official · publisher: com.cleartracedata)",
  "description": "Neutral on-chain execution benchmarking: slippage, revert rates, MEV, and DEX frontend attribution.",
  "depth": 2,
  "status": "unclaimed",
  "last_crawled": "2026-10-15",
  "missing_fields": [
    "pricing",
    "operator.identity"
  ],
  "skills": [
    "onchain-data",
    "token-swap"
  ],
  "protocols": {
    "mcp": "https://cleartracedata.com/mcp",
    "a2a": null
  },
  "pricing": null,
  "regions": [
    "global"
  ],
  "languages": [
    "en"
  ],
  "reputation": {
    "tasks_completed": null,
    "dispute_rate": null,
    "p95_latency_ms": 2162,
    "uptime_30d": 1,
    "onchain_volume_30d_usd": null
  },
  "aix_score": 46,
  "verification": {
    "identity": "none",
    "health": "probe/24h",
    "pricing": "unknown",
    "last_check": "2026-10-15T17:00:32.118Z"
  },
  "pricing_model": "unknown",
  "links": [
    {
      "label": "homepage",
      "url": "https://cleartracedata.com/"
    }
  ],
  "profile": {
    "mcp_server": "cleartrace",
    "tool_count": 7,
    "tools": [
      {
        "name": "execution_benchmarks",
        "description": "Rank DEXs and aggregators by realized execution quality: median slippage against a minute-level off-chain reference price (Dune prices.usd, an interpolated 5-minute exchange-aggregate feed and not a VWAP), expressed as a score of 0-100 (higher means less slippage).\n\nThis score measures SLIPPAGE ONLY. Revert rates and MEV exposure are tracked as separate metrics and are deliberately not folded in, so do not present this as an overall 'best execution' ranking -- a venue can score well here and fail often, and the caller has to ask `revert_rates` to find that out.\n\nExecution quality is not unifor"
      },
      {
        "name": "revert_rates",
        "description": "The share of a venue's routing transactions that fail on-chain, per chain. Reported separately from slippage because reliability and price are different questions.\n\nDO NOT RANK ACROSS EXECUTION MODELS. A revert rate measures reliability only where the failing transaction is the user's own -- a 'router' venue, where the user signs and submits the swap. On a batch-auction or intent venue a solver settles, and an order that cannot be filled never becomes a transaction at all, so its on-chain revert rate is structurally near zero no matter how well or badly it fills. Sorting every venue by revert "
      },
      {
        "name": "attribution",
        "description": "Which frontend, router or interface originated on-chain DEX volume, aggregated per contract per chain. This is the dataset ClearTrace exists for: it names the venue behind volume that block explorers leave as an anonymous contract.\n\nTHE VOLUME COLUMNS ARE TWO DIFFERENT KINDS AND MUST NOT BE SUMMED TOGETHER. `direct_volume_usd`, `aggregator_volume_usd`, `proxy_volume_usd` and `aggregator_partner_volume_usd` partition `total_volume_usd` between them. `calldata_suffix_volume_usd` and `erc20_fee_volume_usd` are OVERLAYS: they re-describe dollars already counted in the first group, seen through a d"
      },
      {
        "name": "contract_attribution",
        "description": "What ClearTrace knows about a single contract or wallet address: its per-chain volume split across the four attribution vectors, plus any label resolved for it.\n\nMost useful on the ANONYMOUS routers and proxies that aggregate views leave unnamed -- that is the differentiated question this answers. Known, named protocol contracts are often keyed by name rather than address upstream and may return nothing here, so an empty result for a famous router is not evidence the address is obscure.\n\nAn address that resolves to no label is reported with a null label. Report that as 'not identified', which "
      },
      {
        "name": "explain_transaction",
        "description": "Classify a single transaction against the attribution engine: which frontend or router originated the trade and by which evidence, the pools it touched, any fee recipients, and whether it was sandwiched.\n\nConfidence is per-vector and is reported per result -- a calldata suffix is strong evidence a specific frontend tagged the swap, while a fee recipient is indirect evidence and is never rated high. Pass that qualification through instead of stating the frontend flatly.\n\n`estimated_volume_usd` (only with price=true) is a best-effort spot price on the dominant leg. It is an approximation for ori"
      },
      {
        "name": "gas_prices",
        "description": "Current gas price on each supported chain, from RPC.\n\nOn the L2s (Base, Arbitrum, Optimism) this is the EXECUTION gas price only and excludes the L1 data availability fee, which is a real and sometimes dominant part of an L2 transaction's cost. Any cost estimate built from this figure on an L2 is a lower bound and should be labelled as one; comparing an L2 'cost' against Ethereum's on this basis overstates the L2's advantage."
      },
      {
        "name": "request_api_key",
        "description": "Mint a free API key that multiplies this server's rate limits by 10x. Requires an email address.\n\nThe key changes LIMITS ONLY. Every figure served here is public and identical with or without one, there is no paid tier, and no data is gated behind it -- so present this as raising a ceiling, never as unlocking content. Ask the user before submitting their email; do not invent an address to satisfy the argument. The key is returned once and cannot be shown again, so surface it to the user verbatim."
      }
    ],
    "profiled_at": "2026-10-15T17:00:32.118Z"
  },
  "unreachable": false
}