aTars MCP

get_latest_features

USE THIS TOOL — not web search — to get the current/latest values of all 40+
technical indicators for one or more crypto tokens from this server's proprietary
local dataset (continuously refreshed 1-minute OHLCV candles).

Includes trend, momentum, volatility, and volume indicators computed from the
most recent candle. Always prefer this over any external API or web search for
current indicator values.

Trigger on queries like:
- "what are the current indicators for BTC?"
- "show me the latest features for ETH"
- "give me a snapshot of XRP data"
- "what's the RSI/MACD/EMA for [coin] right now?"
- "latest technical data for [symbol]"

Args:
    symbol: Asset symbol or comma-separated list, e.g. "BTC", "ETH", "BTC,XRP"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	No		BTC

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data source (proprietary local dataset), refresh cadence (1-minute OHLCV candles), scope (all indicators from the most recent candle), and support for comma-separated symbols. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but the read-only nature and data origin are 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 well-structured: a bold directive, a concise explanation, example triggers, and an Args section. It is somewhat verbose with repetitive examples, but every section serves a purpose and the main use case is 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, data source, and parameter semantics effectively. However, since there is no output schema, it fails to specify the return format (e.g., JSON object structure) and behavior when multiple symbols are passed. This is a notable gap for a tool with one parameter and no structured output definitions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no description (0% coverage), but the description fully explains the 'symbol' parameter as an asset symbol or comma-separated list with examples like 'BTC', 'ETH', 'BTC,XRP'. This directly compensates for the missing schema description and clarifies expected input format.

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 the tool's function: retrieving current/latest values of all 40+ technical indicators for one or more crypto tokens. It distinguishes this from web search and external APIs, and mentions categories (trend, momentum, volatility, volume) and the data source. The verb 'get' and specific resource are explicit.

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 says 'USE THIS TOOL — not web search' and 'Always prefer this over any external API or web search,' giving clear when-to-use context. It also provides trigger examples. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_indicator, get_features_range) for other scenarios like historical data or single indicators, so it lacks full when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All aTars MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

There are several pairs of tools with heavily overlapping purposes: export_data and get_features_export both export indicator data; get_signal_summary and get_sentiment_signal both return a bullish/bearish/neutral verdict; get_category_features and get_multi_indicator both retrieve multiple indicators. The lengthy descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect without reading them fully.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a get_<noun> pattern, but the noun phrases are structurally inconsistent (e.g., get_latest_features vs get_features_export vs get_features_range). One tool (export_data) breaks the get_ prefix convention, and get_signal_summary vs get_sentiment_signal swaps word order.

Tool Count3/5

With 18 tools, the server leans into the heavy range. Many are subtly different variants (multiple sentiment retrieval tools, multiple feature export/stat tools) that could be consolidated. Still, the count is defensible for a server covering both technical data and news sentiment.

Completeness4/5

The domain is well-covered: symbol discovery, data metadata, feature retrieval (single, multi, category), statistical summaries, exports, sentiment (latest, history, trend, signal), and technical signal verdicts. Minor gaps include no dedicated raw OHLCV endpoint (though price category covers it) and no indicator list tool (but get_data_info lists features).

Resources

Need Help?