Skip to main content
Glama

Bitcoin signals: thesis

mcw-signals-thesis
Read-onlyIdempotent

Bitcoin only, beta. The bull, base and bear cases for three horizons (scalp, short and long), as the Signals page's Thesis tab shows them. For each horizon: most_probable_arm, TSP's own most probable case (bull, base, bear or none; null when not known), with probabilities_tie true when two or more cases share the highest probability, and TSP's pick among them then its own tie-break (null when a probability is missing); dominant_case, TSP's own label: the highest-probability case with price levels (bull, base, bear or none; null when not known; the levels themselves are not published), so it can name a different case from the most probable one; the aggregate confidence; and each case's action, its probability, whether it has a signal for its direction (has_signal) and whether TSP marks it degenerate. 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, max pain by six hours since its chain was captured). horizon_timeframes names the timeframe analyses each horizon is built from, and timeframes holds their rows, each with its own analyzed_at and cadence_check (its ok false past half an hour, three of TSP's ten-minute re-runs). Direction and probability only: no entry, target or stop is published, nor any of TSP's reasoning text. Not investment advice.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: null semantics, tie-breaking behavior, staleness rules by input family, cadence checks, and the explicit absence of entry, target, stop, and reasoning text. It also states that outputs are direction and probability only, with a not-investment-advice caveat.

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 long and dense, but the length is justified because there is no output schema and many field-level semantics must be conveyed. Scope is front-loaded, though the field details could be easier to scan with more structure.

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 and a rich, complex result shape, the description does an unusually thorough job of explaining the returned fields, horizon composition, staleness checks, null cases, and explicit exclusions. An agent has enough information to interpret the response correctly.

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?

There are no input parameters to document, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output and behavioral semantics instead of inventing parameter details.

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 states a specific resource and scope: Bitcoin-only bull/base/bear thesis cases across three horizons, as shown in the Signals page's Thesis tab. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling signal tabs such as charts, market data, overview, and sentiment.

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?

It clearly establishes the usage context and constraints: Bitcoin only, beta, three horizons, and the Thesis tab. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this one, but the context is sufficiently clear for a zero-parameter read endpoint.

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