Skip to main content
Glama

Bitcoin signals: overview

mcw-signals-overview
Read-onlyIdempotent

Bitcoin only, beta. The BTC spot price with the change TSP reports beside it (spot.delta_pct, in percent; TSP says it is the exchange-reported change over a rolling day), the trend, direction and confidence on each of thirteen timeframes with their consensus, each timeframe's direction recomputed every minute (live), the bull, base and bear cases with their probabilities for three horizons (TSP's own labels for them, most_probable_arm and dominant_case, are defined in mcw-signals-thesis), and support and resistance by how often they recur. Direction and confidence only: no entry, target or stop is published. Every value carries its own observed time, and freshness says how old the snapshot is. Each horizon's inputs are judged at the moment of the answer, each series against its own cadence (judged_on[].cadence_check, and stale per input family; ETF flows by two days since their row was written, and max pain, which has no cadence, by six hours since its chain was captured, as stopped_refreshing judges them). TSP re-runs its timeframe rows about every ten minutes, though a round is sometimes skipped, and each row's cadence_check judges its analysis against that at the moment of the answer, its ok false past half an hour, three re-runs; live.timeframes gives each timeframe's direction recomputed every minute from candles by TSP's own rule (the live price against the mean of the last 20 closes; distance_pct is how far from it, in percent), or a null direction with why. live.age_s is its price's age (roughly 100 to 170 s on a working lane: the price is dated by its own one-minute bar, not when it was read) and live.stale is true past five minutes, judged at the moment of the answer; live is null when none is stored. Not investment advice.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it flags the tool as beta, states that only direction and confidence are published (no entry/target/stop), explains freshness and staleness semantics, describes cadence checks, and notes that `live` is null when nothing is stored. These details help an agent interpret the response without contradicting the read-only, idempotent 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense single paragraph packed with implementation-level thresholds and parentheticals. Much of the detail is relevant given the lack of an output schema, but the structure could be more scannable and less verbose for a no-parameter overview tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics and does so extensively, including `spot.delta_pct`, timeframe consensus, `live.timeframes`, `freshness`, `judged_on[].cadence_check`, and staleness rules. It gives an agent enough context to understand what the response represents and how to interpret recency and limitations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage because the schema is empty and fully described by the absence of parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the resource and scope: a Bitcoin-only signals overview covering spot price/change, timeframe trend/direction/confidence, consensus, bull/base/bear cases, and support/resistance. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from most siblings such as mcw-signals-charts or mcw-signals-market-data, though it cross-references mcw-signals-thesis for label definitions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the 'overview' framing and the listed contents; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus sibling signals tools. The cross-reference to mcw-signals-thesis clarifies where thesis labels are defined, but not when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives.

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.

Resources