Skip to main content
Glama

Central Command

by co.supabase.rtcelwjnrbmfmrywacky

Bitcoin ETF Flow Tracker

cc.etf_flows
Read-onlyIdempotent

Call cc.etf_flows — Real-time Bitcoin/crypto ETF inflow and outflow data tracking institutional positioning (GBTC, IBIT, FBTC, etc). 60-min cache. Purpose: Real-time Bitcoin/crypto ETF inflow and outflow data tracking institutional positioning (GBTC, IBIT, FBTC, etc). 60-min cache. Behavior: READ-ONLY. Does not place orders, move funds, or mutate your exchange account. Responses may be cached (~3600s). Auth: X-Api-Key or x402 payment proof (X-PAYMENT / __x_payment). Anonymous unauthenticated calls receive HTTP 402 with payment accepts. Cost: $0.002 USDC per successful call (x402 Base USDC pay-per-use or prepaid X-Api-Key balance). Linked Connect keys are free. This is billing, not a side effect. Rate limit: 30/min (per API key). Tier: standard. Returns: Per-ETF daily flow in USD with cumulative totals, showing institutional demand/supply dynamics. Guidelines: Use for research / signal context. Pair with cc.agent_strategy (paper) before any live order. Do not invent fills from this data alone. Tags: etf, institutional, flows, bitcoin, blackrock, grayscale.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
__x_paymentNoOptional x402 payment proof (same value as X-PAYMENT header). Use when retrying after HTTP 402 if your MCP client cannot set custom headers. Not a business parameter. Optional.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the gateway HTTP status is 2xx.
dataNoParsed JSON body from the endpoint (shape varies by slug).
errorNoError message when ok is false.
statusYesUpstream HTTP status from x402-gateway.
billingNoOptional payment / cost metadata when present.
endpointYesCatalog slug that was invoked (e.g. funding-rates).

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context on caching (60-min/3600s), authentication methods, cost ($0.002), rate limit (30/min), and billing details, with no contradictions.

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 comprehensive but slightly repetitive (purpose stated twice). It is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by behavior, auth, cost, rate limits, returns, and guidelines. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (payment, caching, rate limits, multiple auth methods), the description covers all necessary aspects thoroughly. Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one optional parameter (__x_payment) with 100% schema coverage. The description explains its purpose ('retrying after HTTP 402 if your MCP client cannot set custom headers'), adding value beyond the schema.

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 provides real-time Bitcoin/crypto ETF inflow/outflow data tracking institutional positioning, listing specific ETFs (GBTC, IBIT, FBTC). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on ETF flows and caching behavior.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use for research / signal context. Pair with cc.agent_strategy (paper) before any live order. Do not invent fills from this data alone,' 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 Central Command toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools serve overlapping purposes, such as multiple Coinglass data tools (cc.coinglass_data, cc.funding_rates, cc.open_interest, etc.) and multiple AI chat assistants (cc.squirrel_chat, cc.squirrel_chat_v2, cc.openclaw_chat). The distinctions are subtle, likely causing agent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `cc.<snake_case>` pattern, with verbs like `list_catalog`, `cc.ma_fetch`, and `cc.trade_builder`. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side but reasonable for a comprehensive crypto trading platform. However, significant redundancy (e.g., multiple data sources for similar indicators) suggests some could be consolidated, making the surface feel heavier than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most aspects of crypto trading: market data, technical indicators, signals, execution, backtesting, AI analysis, and blockchain RPC. Minor gaps exist (e.g., portfolio management), but the surface is largely complete for the intended domain.

Resources