x402 Crypto Market Structure

market_orderflow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this move backed by real buyers, or is it two venues painting tape? See CVD direction, buy/sell ratio, whale clustering, liquidation pressure, and how many of 20 live exchanges are accumulating vs distributing. Volume concentration (HHI > 0.6) flags wash trading or thin manipulation. Data-only. orderflow coverage disclosed per token. REST equivalent: POST /analyze/orderflow (0.50 USDC).

Args:
    token: Token symbol (BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA, DOGE, AVAX, LINK, BNB, ATOM,
           DOT, ARB, SUI, OP, LTC, NEAR, TRX, BCH, SHIB, HBAR, TON, XLM, UNI, AAVE,
           AMP, ZEC)
    context: Optional 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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing that orderflow coverage varies per token and that HHI > 0.6 flags wash trading, providing useful data-quality caveats. No contradiction found.

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 includes a rhetorical question upfront, which adds engagement but is not strictly necessary. The metrics list and Args section are concise and well-organized, though the question could be trimmed for tighter structure. Overall efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, key metrics, REST equivalent, parameter semantics, and data coverage caveats. The only missing element is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but the tool is otherwise well-specified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by listing all valid token symbols and explaining the context parameter's meaning ('Adds percentile rankings'). This goes well beyond the schema, giving the agent everything needed to manually construct correct arguments.

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 identifies an orderflow analysis tool with specific metrics (CVD direction, buy/sell ratio, whale clustering, liquidation pressure) and explicitly notes it as 'Data-only'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on orderflow, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like market_analyze or market_full. The description mentions data-only and coverage but does not state selection criteria or contrast it with siblings, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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?