Skip to main content
Glama

APEX Runner Crypto Signals

apex_pulse

$0.007 — Ultra-cheap $0.01 heartbeat signal for AI agents running health checks. Returns APEX system status, current BTC market regime, Fear & Greed value, and total active trading pairs across all 3 exchanges (Kraken, Coinbase, Hyperliquid) in a single fast call. Cache: 60 seconds.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "apex_pulse"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 60-second cache TTL and that the call is fast and read-only in nature, which are traits not present in any structured field. It omits auth requirements, failure behavior, and the pricing line is internally inconsistent ($0.007 vs '$0.01'), which weakens trust in the disclosed traits.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payload description front-loaded and only one trailing detail (cache) after it. The opening price fragment '$0.007 — Ultra-cheap $0.01' is muddled and costs a little clarity, but the rest earns its space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by listing what is returned, and a zero-param tool needs no argument coverage. Field names or the response envelope are not specified, but for a heartbeat call the current level of detail is close to sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 uses a specific framing — a heartbeat/health-check signal — and enumerates exactly what comes back: APEX system status, BTC market regime, Fear & Greed, and active pair count across three named exchanges. That bundle framing implicitly separates it from single-metric siblings such as fear_greed or regime, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by 'for AI agents running health checks,' which gives a reasonable trigger context. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for an agent that only needs one of the returned metrics, so selection still requires inference.

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.

Resources