x402 Crypto Market Structure

market_analyze

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is macro with you or against you? Get the current regime (bull/bear/risk_on/risk_off/choppy), directional signal and confidence, and macro context (DXY, VIX, fear/greed) before entering a position. Data-only, no LLM latency. coverage disclosed per token. REST equivalent: POST /analyze/market (0.25 USDC).

Args:
    token: Token symbol (BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA, DOGE, AVAX, LINK, BNB, ATOM,
           DOT, ARB, SUI, OP, LTC, AMP, ZEC)
    context: Optional historical context window ('7d' or '30d'). Adds percentile rankings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes
`context`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it is 'data-only, no LLM latency,' covers cost via 'REST equivalent: POST /analyze/market (0.25 USDC),' and discloses data coverage per token. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand performance and cost implications.

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, starting with a purpose question, listing outputs, key features, cost, and then arguments. It is slightly longer than necessary due to the rhetorical question, but every sentence adds value. It earns a 4.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and a clear description covering purpose, usage context, params, and performance/cost, the tool description is sufficiently complete. The agent can confidently decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema provides only types and requiredness. The description adds meaning: it lists the accepted token symbols and explains that context is an optional window ('7d' or '30d') that adds percentile rankings. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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: it provides the current market regime (bull/bear/risk_on/risk_off/choppy), directional signal, confidence, and macro context. The verb 'get' and resource 'current regime' make the purpose explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like market_snapshot or market_light by focusing on macro analysis.

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 gives a clear use case: 'before entering a position.' It also mentions it is 'data-only, no LLM latency' which suggests suitability for quick pre-trade checks. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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

All x402 Crypto Market Structure 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The five market_* tools overlap in purpose—all provide market analysis for tokens—but each has a distinct focus (macro regime, full diligence, light coverage, orderflow, snapshot). The overlap is manageable, but an agent could hesitate between market_snapshot and market_orderflow since both include orderflow data. address_risk and api_info are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: address_risk, api_info, market_orderflow, and market_snapshot are noun_noun compounds, while market_analyze is noun_verb, and market_full/market_light are noun_adjective. There's no consistent verb_noun or pattern, making it harder to infer tool behavior from names alone.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a market analysis server. Each tool covers a reasonable slice of functionality without excessive redundancy, and the count fits the typical 3-15 tool sweet spot.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the major aspects of market structure analysis: macro regime, snapshot, orderflow, full due diligence, lightweight coverage for any token, wallet risk, and API info. Minor gaps exist—such as no dedicated historical data tool or token-level risk beyond what market_full provides—but agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?