Market Intelligence API (core)

Find opportunities

market.opportunities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Goal-driven scan: name an objective and constraints, get ranked symbols with supporting and conflicting evidence grouped by independent source (spot DEX flow, perp positioning, smart-money wallets), typed risk factors, data quality, the live 1h hit rate of the signal and the next calls to make. Use instead of chaining screeners. Objectives: unusual_buying, unusual_selling, breakout, breakdown, crowded_positioning, smart_money_accumulation, smart_money_distribution.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window`	No	Aggregation window of the live trade buckets: 1m, 5m (default) or 15m	5m
`include`	No	Blocks to return; default all
`universe`	No	Symbols to scan (max 100); omit for all covered symbols
`objective`	Yes	What to look for
`assetClass`	No	Restrict to crypto, us_equity or perp_only symbols
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of ranked symbols (default 10)
`minVolumeUsd`	No	USD traded in the window
`minConfidence`	No	Minimum signal confidence, 0-100
`minBuyPressure`	No	Pressure on the objective's side (buy for buying, sell for selling)
`minVolumeMultiple`	No	Volume vs the symbol's own baseline
`minIndependentSources`	No	Distinct sources confirming the direction

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / window / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "1m",
-  "5m",
-  "15m"
-]New value: +[
+  "1m",
+  "5m",
+  "15m",
+  "1h",
+  "4h",
+  "24h"
+]

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful output context: ranked symbols with supporting/conflicting evidence grouped by independent source, typed risk factors, data quality, live 1h hit rate, and next calls.

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 first sentence is dense but front-loads purpose and outputs, followed by a useful alternative-use sentence and the objective list. It could be split for readability but contains no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it lists the returned blocks (evidence, risk factors, quality, track record, next calls). It omits fine-grained response structure, but is complete enough for a scan tool with rich annotations.

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 all 11 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond repeating the objective enum and mentioning constraints/grouping by source, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (scan) and resource (ranked symbols) with a clear goal-driven scope, and notes it replaces chaining screeners. Does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the objective-driven scan is clearly distinguishable from snapshot/summary tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use instead of chaining screeners,' providing an alternative workflow, and instructs to name an objective and constraints. Lacks when-not conditions or direct comparison to sibling decision tools.

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

All Market Intelligence API (core) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?