Skip to main content
Glama

Central Command

by co.supabase.rtcelwjnrbmfmrywacky

AI Indicator Creator

cc.indicator_generator
Read-onlyIdempotent

Call cc.indicator_generator — AI-powered indicator workshop. Actions: generate (prompt→code), list_library (user saved indicators), get_indicator (by id), delete_indicator, get_draft (poll generation status), save (persist to library). Returns full indicator code, params, and metadata. Purpose: AI-powered indicator workshop. Actions: generate (prompt→code), list_library (user saved indicators), get_indicator (by id), delete_indicator, get_draft (poll generation status), save (persist to library). Returns full indicator code, params, and metadata. Behavior: READ-ONLY. Does not place orders, move funds, or mutate your exchange account. Live / near-real-time data. Auth: X-Api-Key or x402 payment proof (X-PAYMENT / __x_payment). Anonymous unauthenticated calls receive HTTP 402 with payment accepts. Cost: $0.02 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: 10/min (per API key). Tier: premium. Returns: For generation: {success, processing, generation_id}. For list_library: {indicators:[{id, name, description, code, color, is_overlay, params}]}. For get_draft: {draft, status, generation_id}. Guidelines: Pass required parameters exactly; omit unknown fields. On 402, settle payment then retry with X-PAYMENT. Tags: indicator, code-generation, ai, custom, technical-analysis, charting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saveNoSet true with indicator_data to persist to library Optional.
actionNolist_library | get_indicator | delete_indicator | get_draft | save. Omit for generation. Optional.
promptNoNatural language description of indicator to generate (required for generation) Optional.
historyNoConversation history for refinement Optional.
timeframeNoChart timeframe context (e.g. 4H, 1D) Optional.
__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.
indicator_idNoUUID of indicator (for get/delete actions) Optional.
indicator_dataNoFull indicator object to save: {name, description, code, color, is_overlay, params} 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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states read-only behavior, no fund mutation, and includes billing details (cost, rate limit, auth) beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds valuable context like rate limits and payment flow without contradiction.

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?

The description is repetitive, with the actions list duplicated. It is well-structured with sections but could be more concise. Length is appropriate for the complexity, but redundancy reduces efficiency.

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 complex tool with multiple actions, 8 parameters, billing, rate limits, and error handling, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, actions, returns, behavior, auth, cost, and guidelines. Output schema exists, so return format explanations are adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantic meaning for individual parameters beyond the schema's descriptions. It lists actions and returns but does not elaborate on parameter usage specifics.

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 it is an AI-powered indicator workshop with a defined set of actions (generate, list, get, delete, get_draft, save) and return formats. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on indicator generation, code, and metadata, which is a specific niche not covered by others.

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 provides guidelines on parameter usage, error handling (402), and retry logic. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks comparative 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