Central Command

AI-Curated Market News

cc.market_news

Read-onlyIdempotent

Call cc.market_news — Aggregated crypto and macro market news from multiple sources with relevance scoring and categorization. Purpose: Aggregated crypto and macro market news from multiple sources with relevance scoring and categorization. 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: $0.002 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: Categorized news articles: title, source, URL, relevance score, AI summary per category. 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: news, sentiment, narrative, catalyst, headlines.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	No	Filter: btc, eth, sol, macro, all Optional.
`__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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral details: read-only, does not mutate account, responses cached (~1800s), auth methods (X-Api-Key or x402), cost ($0.002 USDC), rate limit (30/min), and returns categorized articles. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, behavior, auth, cost, rate limit, returns, guidelines). It is slightly lengthy but does not contain unnecessary redundancy. Efficient communication overall.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, read-only behavior, caching, authentication, pricing, rate limiting, return format, and usage guidelines. No gaps identified.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; it mentions filtering by category implicitly ('btc, eth, sol, macro, all') but does not elaborate on the payment proof parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 aggregates crypto and macro market news with relevance scoring and categorization. It uses a specific verb ('Call') and resource ('market news'), and the purpose is distinct from siblings like cc.agent_strategy (paper strategy) or cc.fear_greed (sentiment index).

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 using for research/signal context, pairing with cc.agent_strategy before live orders, and warns against 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?