Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto Fear & Greed Index

cc.fear_greed
Read-onlyIdempotent

Call cc.fear_greed — Crypto market Fear & Greed composite index (0-100) with historical values and trend direction. 30-min cache. Purpose: Crypto market Fear & Greed composite index (0-100) with historical values and trend direction. 30-min cache. Behavior: READ-ONLY. Does not place orders, move funds, or mutate your exchange account. Responses may be cached (~1800s). Auth: X-Api-Key or x402 payment proof (X-PAYMENT / __x_payment). Anonymous unauthenticated calls receive HTTP 402 with payment accepts. Cost: $0.0005 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: 120/min (per API key). Tier: standard. Returns: Current index value (0=extreme fear, 100=extreme greed) plus 7/30/90 day history. 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: sentiment, fear-greed, market-cycle, contrarian.

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?

Description discloses read-only behavior, caching (~1800s), payment model, and rate limit beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections and front-loaded core info. Slightly verbose with repeated phrase about the index and cache, but overall efficient.

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 output schema exists, description explains return structure (current value plus 7/30/90 day history). Input schema fully covered. Annotations provide safety. Sibling differentiation and usage guidelines complete.

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?

Schema has one optional parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds context on when to use __x_payment (retrying after 402 when headers can't be set). No enums or nested objects.

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 returns the Crypto Fear & Greed composite index with historical values and trend direction. It distinguishes from siblings by encouraging pairing with cc.agent_strategy, and provides tags like 'sentiment' and 'fear-greed'.

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?

Explicitly advises use for research/signal context, recommends pairing with cc.agent_strategy before live orders, and warns against inventing fills from this data alone. Also details auth, cost, and rate limits.

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

Try in Browser

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