SCRIPTMASTERLABS — x402 Gateway

precross_analyze

SML PRECROSS (PAID $0.02 USDC on Base via x402). 11/64 EMA cross intelligence for US stocks and ETFs on 1H or 4H (regular session) or 1D bars — derived analysis, not raw bars. Returns the exact price at which the 11 and 64 EMA cross on the next bar (closed-form, plus a zero-lag variant), the move needed to reach it in % and ATR, whether the EMAs are converging and an estimated bars-to-cross, and a walk-forward self-backtest of anticipating that cross (in-sample config selection, out-of-sample verdict, costs both sides, confirmed-cross baseline for comparison) with a six-check proof gate per side; on 1H/4H the grid also tests a "daily agrees" filter (daily 11/64 trend, no lookahead). Also returns a 75-ticker basket proof (pooled out-of-sample trades across US stocks and funds incl. gold, silver, Bitcoin and Ethereum funds, with breadth check and standout ranking) and a plain-English summary. A long/short setup is returned ONLY for a side whose out-of-sample results pass the gate (this ticker's own gate, or the basket gate when the ticker is in the basket); otherwise the direction is withheld and the reason is given. Use for: knowing where an 11/64 EMA cross will trigger before it prints, and whether anticipating it has actually worked on this ticker and timeframe. Don't use when: you need raw OHLC bars, timeframes below 1H, spot crypto, or order execution (this tool places no orders). Research output, not financial advice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "precross_analyze"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	US stock/ETF ticker, e.g. AMC, GME, SPY.
`timeframe`	No	1h or 4h (regular-session bars) or 1d.	4h
`payment_header`	No	Base64 X-PAYMENT EIP-3009 payload (standard rail) for $0.02 USDC on Base.
`wallet_address`	No	Agent wallet address (informational).
`payment_tx_hash`	No	Base USDC tx hash (sovereign rail) paying $0.02 to the canonical SML receiver.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / timeframe / description

Previous value: -"4h (regular-session 4-hour bars) or 1d."New value: +"1h or 4h (regular-session bars) or 1d."

changedInput schema / properties / timeframe / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "4h",
-  "1d"
-]New value: +[
+  "1h",
+  "4h",
+  "1d"
+]

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive and open-world; the description carries the real burden by disclosing the $0.02 USDC on Base x402 payment requirement, the two payment rails implied by the schema, the withheld-direction gating rule, and lookup/gate caveats (in-sample vs out-of-sample, costs both sides, no-lookahead filter). It does not contradict any annotation: 'places no orders' is consistent with destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false is plausibly attributable to the payment side effect. Missing only latency/payment-failure behaviors, which caps it at 4.

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 front-loading is good — payment cost and resource are in the first clause — and every sentence carries substantive content. However, the middle section is one very long run-on enumeration of return fields and gate mechanics that is hard to parse and would benefit from tighter grouping or splitting.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned artifacts: cross price with zero-lag variant, %/ATR move, convergence and bars-to-cross, walk-forward backtest with six-check gate, basket proof, and summary. For a tool of this complexity, an agent has enough to know what comes back and when the setup will be withheld.

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% and each of the five parameters is documented in the schema, including the enum for timeframe and the two payment credentials. The description adds only the price/chain context ('$0.02 USDC on Base via x402') and no per-parameter syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: '11/64 EMA cross intelligence for US stocks and ETFs on 1H or 4H ... or 1D bars', and explicitly scopes it as 'derived analysis, not raw bars'. It also names what it is not ('raw OHLC bars, timeframes below 1H, spot crypto, or order execution'), which cleanly separates it from the runtime and x402 siblings.

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?

Contains explicit 'Use for:' and 'Don't use when:' blocks with concrete conditions — anticipating an EMA cross vs. needing raw bars, sub-1H timeframes, spot crypto, or order execution. The alternatives and exclusions are enumerated rather than implied.

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

All SCRIPTMASTERLABS — x402 Gateway 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.