APEX Runner Crypto Signals

dca_signal

$0.007 — DCA accumulation entry signal based on Fear & Greed index, RSI, and volatility regime for BTC, ETH, SOL, AVAX. Mirrors APEX Runner's live DCA logic.

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": "dca_signal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coin`	No	Cryptocurrency symbol (default: BTC)	BTC

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It notes the pricing ($0.007), which is useful cost context, but never says what the signal actually returns (entry/no-entry, a score, a direction), whether it is a live read or cached, or what 'mirrors APEX Runner's live DCA logic' implies for latency or determinism.

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 that front-load the price and then the mechanism. Nothing is padded, though the 'Mirrors APEX Runner's live DCA logic' clause delivers little actionable information for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source for the return shape, and it omits it entirely. For a signal-generating tool, the agent cannot tell whether a call yields a boolean entry flag, a composite score, or a narrative.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage with an enum, so the baseline is 3. The prose actually lists only BTC, ETH, SOL, AVAX while the enum also offers LINK and XRP, which is a mild inconsistency rather than added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a 'DCA accumulation entry signal' derived from Fear & Greed, RSI, and volatility regime. That is meaningfully more specific than a bare name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like regime or fear_greed that feed the same inputs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No indication of when to call this versus the sibling signal tools, no dca-sizing counterpart named, and no preconditions stated. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'DCA accumulation entry signal'.

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

All APEX Runner Crypto Signals tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?