Central Command

External Signal Webhook

cc.external_signal

Destructive

Call cc.external_signal — Public-facing webhook endpoint for TradingView alerts, custom bots, and third-party signal providers. Normalizes and forwards to execution. Purpose: Public-facing webhook endpoint for TradingView alerts, custom bots, and third-party signal providers. Normalizes and forwards to execution. Behavior: DESTRUCTIVE. Normalizes the signal and routes toward trade execution for the authenticated account. Can open/close positions. Auth: X-Api-Key required (and linked exchange credentials for execution actions). Cost: $0.005 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: 60/min (per API key). Tier: standard. Returns: Proxied execution response: signal received, validated, normalized, and forwarded to trade engine. 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: webhook, tradingview, alerts, automation, signals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No	Parameter `size` (number). Optional.
`action`	Yes	buy, sell, close Required.
`symbol`	Yes	Parameter `symbol` (string). Required.
`__x_payment`	No	Optional 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

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True when the gateway HTTP status is 2xx.
`data`	No	Parsed JSON body from the endpoint (shape varies by slug).
`error`	No	Error message when ok is false.
`status`	Yes	Upstream HTTP status from x402-gateway.
`billing`	No	Optional payment / cost metadata when present.
`endpoint`	Yes	Catalog slug that was invoked (e.g. funding-rates).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description explicitly states the tool is destructive, can open/close positions, requires X-Api-Key auth and exchange credentials, costs $0.005 USDC per call, and has a 60/min rate limit. All critical behavioral traits are disclosed beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Description is informative but contains repetition (first sentence and 'Purpose' section overlap). It is structured with sections but could be more concise. Still, it is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's complexity (destructive, paid, rate-limited, auth required) and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: behavior, auth, cost, rate limit, return description, and usage guidelines. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without additional info.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the __x_payment parameter (explains its purpose for HTTP 402 retries) but does not significantly elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is a public-facing webhook endpoint for TradingView alerts, custom bots, and third-party signal providers, and that it normalizes and forwards to execution. This distinguishes it from siblings like cc.central_signal and cc.agent_strategy.

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?

Explicit 'Guidelines' section advises using for research/signal context, pairing with cc.agent_strategy (paper) before live orders, and not inventing fills from this data alone. Provides 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 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

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

Need Help?