TraderSpy

get_signal_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user needs full details for one AI signal by ID, including review and resolution data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`signalId`	Yes	The ID of the signal to retrieve

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Signal id — pass to get_signal_details
`coin`	No
`price`	No	Price when the signal triggered
`action`	No	buy or sell
`history`	No
`targets`	No	Take-profit and stop levels: { label, type, pct }
`aiReview`	No
`createdAt`	No
`livePrice`	No	Current price, so the model can judge whether the signal still stands
`timeframe`	No	Chart timeframe the preset evaluated, e.g. 4h
`importance`	No	high \| medium \| low
`strategyName`	No	Preset that produced the signal
`signalStrength`	No	weak \| moderate \| strong \| very_strong
`indicatorValues`	No	Indicator readings at trigger time
`resolutionStatus`	No	pending \| stop \| tp1_hit \| tp2_hit \| tp3_hit \| profit_locked \| expired
`triggeredConditions`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it includes 'review and resolution data', which is useful but does not describe handling of missing IDs or response structure. This is comparable to the calibration example, where annotations cover safety and the description adds minimal behavior context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that immediately states purpose and includes the key constraint (by ID). Zero waste, effective for an agent.

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?

Simple tool with one param (100% schema coverage), read-only annotations, and an output schema available. The description tells the agent exactly what it returns (full details, review and resolution data) and the condition (by ID), which is complete for this type of lookup tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'signalId' described as 'The ID of the signal to retrieve'. The description reinforces that it's an ID-based lookup but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action ('retrieve'), the resource ('one AI signal by ID'), and the scope ('full details... including review and resolution data'). It clearly distinguishes from listing signals, making the 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description opens with 'Use this when the user needs full details for one AI signal by ID', which is a clear usage trigger. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for listing signals or when to use them, though the phrasing implies a single-item retrieval by ID.

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

All TraderSpy 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: market data, signals, trader profiles, and account info are well separated. However, get_elite_leaderboard and get_top_traders both return ranked trader lists and could easily be mistaken for one another despite slightly different criteria.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool uses a consistent get_ prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase (get_candles, get_signal_details, get_trader_profile). The naming pattern is highly predictable and makes the toolset easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools is at the upper bound of the ideal range, but each tool maps to a distinct data surface—market data, signals, traders, leaderboards, and account info. The count feels appropriate for a comprehensive crypto intelligence API.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the core read-only domain thoroughly: price/candle data, technical indicators, signals and their stats, trader rankings and profiles, position history, and account details. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated purpose of a smart-money tracking and analytics service.

Resources

Need Help?