Skip to main content
Glama

Bitcoin signals: sentiment

mcw-signals-sentiment
Read-onlyIdempotent

Bitcoin only, beta. TSP's sentiment readings for BTC, each with its own time and none combined with another. hourly: TSP's rollup across its sources, not scoped to one org, its newest hourly buckets (up to 48), each with its hour, mean_sentiment, stddev_sentiment and sample_count; a bucket with fewer than thin_below readings is thin; a null mean is no data, never 0; an hour with no readings has no bucket; TSP rewrites an hour after it closes, and newest_bucket_open says whether the newest is still open at the moment of the answer. ema: TSP's 24-hour EMA of that rollup, each point with its hour and the computed_at TSP gives it. A score outside -1 to 1 is published as null: that is the Wire's filter, not a scale TSP states. news_index: TSP's own daily news index (0 to 100, 100 = extreme greed), with TSP's label and article_count; a day with too few articles has a null value, never a low one. blend: TSP's blend, the weighted_sentiment, confidence and source_count of its canonical row over that row's own window (window_start to window_end); it is not a combination of the indexes. The hourly, EMA and news blocks each carry their own cadence_check, and the blend its age_s and stale, judged at the moment of the answer. By default each series is the newest 3 points; the answer's history block reports how many older points were left out. Set history to true for the full stored series. Not investment advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
historyNoTrue returns every stored point of each series instead of the newest 3 (up to 48 hourly buckets, 24 EMA points and 30 days of the news index).

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context on top: null means no data (never 0), thin buckets below `thin_below`, hours with no readings produce no bucket, TSP rewrites a closed hour, `newest_bucket_open` reports liveness, and per-block `cadence_check`/`age_s`/`stale` are judged at answer time. This is unusually rich disclosure well beyond the 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 first sentence front-loads scope, but the body is a single dense wall of prose with heavy nested clauses (semicolons, em-dashes, stylized quotes) that is hard to scan. Most sentences carry real information for a no-output-schema tool, but the volume and lack of structural grouping (per-series lists) work against readability.

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 must describe returns, and it does so exhaustively per series (field names like `mean_sentiment`, `stddev_sentiment`, `computed_at`, `weighted_sentiment`, `confidence`, `article_count`) plus staleness and null semantics. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single `history` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the interaction with the response's `history` block and the per-series caps (48 hourly buckets, 24 EMA points, 30 days news), clarifying the consequence of the flag.

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 states the resource precisely: TSP sentiment readings for BTC, broken into four named series (hourly, ema, news_index, blend) with field-level detail. It scopes the tool ('Bitcoin only, beta'). It never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. mcw-signals-market-data, mcw-signals-charts), so an agent gets a clear picture of the tool but no explicit disambiguation.

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 implied by the content (retrieve sentiment readings), and the `history` toggle has an explicit default-vs-full-series rule. But there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no comparison to the other mcw-signals-* siblings, so an agent must infer routing.

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