Crypto Data & Market Analysis Agent

get_market_brief

Read-onlyIdempotent

The verdict in one call, not the ingredients. Composes positioning (funding and open interest with their percentiles), sentiment, implied volatility, the macro regime and the cost of execution into a single stance — risk-on, risk-off, fragile or neutral — with a confidence level, the signals that produced it and what would invalidate it. The rules are DETERMINISTIC, not a model opinion: the same numbers always give the same verdict, and every driver is returned with its value and its reading, so any part of it can be argued with rather than taken on faith. "Fragile" is a state rather than a direction: crowded positioning TOGETHER WITH cheap implied volatility, meaning the market is leaning one way and paying almost nothing for protection. A source that fails lowers confidence and is named under "missing" instead of being counted as a neutral zero. Percentile context exists only for BTC; for other coins the level is reported without the crowded label.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coin`	No	Coin, e.g. "BTC" (default), "ETH", "SOL".
`sizeUsd`	No	Trade size the execution cost is measured at, in US dollars. Defaults to 100000.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	Yes	ISO timestamp the brief was computed at.
`coin`	Yes
`stance`	Yes	fragile is a state, not a direction: crowded positioning together with cheap implied volatility.
`drivers`	Yes	Every signal that fed the verdict, so it can be argued with instead of taken on faith.
`missing`	Yes	Sources that did not answer. A missing signal is never counted as a neutral one.
`verdict`	Yes	The read in one or two sentences.
`tradeable`	No	null when no venue could be read.
`confidence`	Yes
`invalidation`	Yes	Concrete, numeric conditions that would make this verdict wrong.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It discloses deterministic behavior, explains the 'fragile' state condition, and how missing data is handled (lowers confidence and names missing sources). This goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations and provides valuable behavioral insight.

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 somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds meaningful nuance about the tool's deterministic nature and edge cases. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, avoiding unnecessary filler.

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?

The description fully explains what the tool outputs (stance, confidence, signals, invalidation criteria) and covers important edge cases like missing sources and percentile handling for BTC vs. other coins. Even without an explicit output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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% (both coin and sizeUsd are described directly in the input schema). The description does not add additional parameter-specific explanation, but the schema descriptions are already clear, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 that the tool produces a market brief with a consolidated stance (risk-on/off/fragile/neutral) and supporting signals. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it provides a 'verdict' rather than raw 'ingredients'.

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 implies when to use it—when a single high-level summary is needed instead of detailed data—and contrasts with 'ingredients' which suggests alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use criteria.

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

All Crypto Data & Market Analysis Agent 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct data domain—network health, market prices, news, DeFi, derivatives per-venue vs aggregate, economic calendar, ETH address, whale flows, execution cost, sentiment, implied volatility, macro rates, market brief, dominance, history, and traditional market quotes. The only similar pair (get_derivatives vs get_derivatives_aggregate) is clearly differentiated by level of detail, so there is no real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the get_<domain> pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_btc_network, get_eth_whale_flows, get_market_brief). No mixed verb styles or casing conventions appear, making the naming fully predictable and consistent.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the surface is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the breadth of the domain—spot, derivatives, on-chain, macro, sentiment, and execution—justifies each tool. It's borderline but each tool earns its place in a comprehensive market analysis agent.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers nearly every major facet of crypto market analysis: prices, history, dominance, derivatives, on-chain activity, DeFi, macro, economic calendar, sentiment, implied volatility, execution cost, and a composite brief. Minor gaps like historical OHLCV or multi-chain on-chain analytics are not critical given the agent's stated focus.

Resources

Need Help?