Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tradingale-mcp

by com.tradingale
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

list_top_crypto

Read-only

A RANKED LIST OF CRYPTOS, sized by you: choose how many (1-20) and an optional minimum Startingale. Use this when those two are the ONLY conditions; anything else (a venue, a round count, a minimum Martingale Score) needs search_instruments. For a fixed top 5 with no arguments, use crypto_overview. Answers in formatted text. Costs 3 units of the monthly quota.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many to return, highest Martingale Score first. 1-20, default 10.
min_startingaleNoKeep only entries at or above this Startingale reading: how well the CURRENT price sits versus the structure, unlike the Martingale Score which ranks them. Scale 0-5: 4.3 and above reads Strong, 3.7 and above Favorable, 3 and above Moderate, below that Misaligned. Default: 0 (no filter).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / min_startingale / description
      Previous value: -"Keep only entries at or above this Startingale reading: how well the CURRENT price sits versus the structure, unlike the Martingale Score which ranks them. Scale 0-5: above 4.5 reads Strong, above 3.75 Favorable, above 3.25 Moderate, below that Misaligned. Default: 0 (no filter)."New value: +"Keep only entries at or above this Startingale reading: how well the CURRENT price sits versus the structure, unlike the Martingale Score which ranks them. Scale 0-5: 4.3 and above reads Strong, 3.7 and above Favorable, 3 and above Moderate, below that Misaligned. Default: 0 (no filter)."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"How many to return, best Martingale Score first. 1-20, default 10."New value: +"How many to return, highest Martingale Score first. 1-20, default 10."
    • changedInput schema / properties / min_startingale / description
      Previous value: -"Keep only entries at or above this Startingale reading — how well the CURRENT price sits versus the structure, unlike the Martingale Score which ranks them. Scale 0-5: above 4.5 reads Strong, above 3.75 Favorable, above 3.25 Moderate, below that Misaligned. Default: 0 (no filter)."New value: +"Keep only entries at or above this Startingale reading: how well the CURRENT price sits versus the structure, unlike the Martingale Score which ranks them. Scale 0-5: above 4.5 reads Strong, above 3.75 Favorable, above 3.25 Moderate, below that Misaligned. Default: 0 (no filter)."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Number of results. Default: 10, Max: 20"New value: +"How many to return, best Martingale Score first. 1-20, default 10."
    • changedInput schema / properties / min_startingale / description
      Previous value: -"Minimum Startingale to include. Default: 0"New value: +"Keep only entries at or above this Startingale reading — how well the CURRENT price sits versus the structure, unlike the Martingale Score which ranks them. Scale 0-5: above 4.5 reads Strong, above 3.75 Favorable, above 3.25 Moderate, below that Misaligned. Default: 0 (no filter)."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does add real context: the 3-unit monthly quota cost and that answers come back as formatted text rather than structured data. It does not mention pagination or truncation behavior, but for a capped 1-20 list that is a minor omission.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the routing rules, then cost — a sensible order with no filler. The shouty first clause and the slightly garbled term 'Startingale' cost a point on clarity, but every sentence still carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by saying results are formatted text and ranked by score, plus the quota cost. With only two well-documented optional parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only return-shape details are thin.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the limit range, default 10, sort order, and the 0-5 Startingale scale with its band labels. The description mostly restates the two knobs (how many, optional minimum Startingale) without adding format or edge-case detail, so this sits at the baseline.

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 (ranked list of cryptos) plus the axis of ranking (Martingale Score, confirmed by the sibling-facing alternatives). It explicitly separates itself from search_instruments (other filters) and crypto_overview (fixed top 5, no arguments), so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives both directions: use here when count and minimum Startingale are the ONLY conditions, and use search_instruments for venue, round count, or minimum Martingale Score. It also routes the no-argument top-5 case to crypto_overview, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Tradingale-mcp toolsInspect
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