x402 Crypto Market Structure

market_light

Read-onlyIdempotent

Structured coverage for ANY listed token — price, momentum, extremes, signals, project info, exchange listings, and optional LLM brief. Broader coverage than market_snapshot (which is limited to 26 supported tokens), shallower data (no orderflow, whale, liquidation, or signal fields). Use for tokens outside the BTC/ETH/SOL/etc. core set. Symbol disambiguation is automatic (top-by-volume match). REST equivalent: POST /data/light (0.05 USDC).

Rate limit: 10 calls / minute per IP (lower than other tools — this fans out to
a paid upstream provider). Cached responses up to 24h are served without
refetching; agents needing fresher data should use the paid REST endpoint.

Args:
    symbol: Token ticker — 1 to 10 alphanumeric characters (e.g. PEPE, WIF,
            FLOKI, BONK). Case-insensitive.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brief`	No		full
`symbol`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses rate limits (10 calls/min per IP), 24h caching behavior, automatic symbol disambiguation (top-by-volume match), and that it fans out to a paid upstream provider. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in the annotations.

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 with clear paragraphs for purpose, usage, rate limits, and args. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value (comparison, rate limit, caching, param details). No fluff, but could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description addresses what the tool does, when to use it, limitations (no orderflow etc.), rate limits, caching, and symbol format. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'brief' parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description thoroughly explains the symbol parameter (1-10 alphanumeric, case-insensitive, examples), but does not explain the 'brief' parameter at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for both parameters; it covers symbol but leaves 'brief' ambiguous, resulting in only partial compensation.

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 what the tool does: 'Structured coverage for ANY listed token — price, momentum, extremes, signals, project info, exchange listings, and optional LLM brief.' It also differentiates from sibling market_snapshot by noting broader coverage but shallower data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use for tokens outside the BTC/ETH/SOL/etc. core set,' and contrasts with market_snapshot (limited to 26 tokens, lacks certain fields). It also advises using the paid REST endpoint for fresher data, providing clear when-to-use and 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 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?