Skip to main content
Glama

sr_detect_levels

Read-onlyIdempotent

Multi-timeframe support/resistance zones + liquidity bands (read-only).

Detects S/R zones per timeframe from recent OHLCV (swing highs/lows, floor pivots, Fibonacci retracement, volume-profile clusters, optional manual levels), merges them across timeframes with a confluence multiplier, and weights zone strength by overlapping candle-volume liquidity-band depth. asset is a token mint; timeframes default ["1h","4h","1d"]; lookback candles per timeframe (capped at 500); sources subset of swing / pivot / fibonacci / volume_profile / price_impact / manual; sensitivity 0-1 (higher = more zones); zone_width_bps sets the band half-width; manual_levels adds caller-supplied override prices. Returns zones (supports / resistances / pivots with price, band, strength, touches, sources, timeframes) plus liquidity_bands. Computed reference levels only -- not financial advice, not a trade instruction (DYOR). No wallet, no fee, no on-chain action.

Workflow: INTELLIGENCE step -- the level picture behind sr_backtest + sr_configure_strategy; pair with get_indicators + detect_regime. See get_trading_workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetYes
sourcesNo
lookbackNo
caller_idNo
timeframesNo
sensitivityNo
manual_levelsNo
zone_width_bpsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral details: computed reference levels only, no wallet/fee/on-chain action, merging across timeframes, and weighting by liquidity. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then details parameters and workflow. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Structure is logical.

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?

Given the presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and workflow adequately. It mentions output fields (zones, liquidity_bands) without duplicating the schema. Lacks explicit details on output structure but schema suffices.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the text explains each parameter's role and defaults (asset as token mint, lookback cap, sources subset, sensitivity range, etc.). It does not list all possible source values exhaustively but provides sufficient context for usage.

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 clearly states the tool detects support/resistance zones and liquidity bands, is read-only, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with sr_backtest and sr_configure_strategy. It also provides workflow context as an INTELLIGENCE step.

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?

The description provides workflow guidance, pairing with related tools, and includes a caveat (not financial advice). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives beyond sibling references.

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.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap significantly: close_perp_position vs perp_close, get_leaderboard vs get_score_leaderboard vs get_strategy_leaderboard, get_venue_status vs get_all_venues_status, send_token_social vs bulk_send_social, and get_crank_score vs get_score. Several read-only tools have nearly identical purposes, and the descriptions do not always clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_balances, create_strategy, set_alert, list_webhooks). However, there are deviations like 'lst_swap', 'jupiter_swap', 'flash_loan', 'sr_backtest', and the use of both 'get_' and 'list_' for reads, plus category prefixes like 'perp_' and 'strategy_' that vary in order. Overall still readable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

177 tools is an extreme count for any server, far exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Even a full DeFi platform does not need this many separate operations; the surface is overwhelming and clearly not well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

The domain (Solana DeFi trading) is covered extensively across swaps, perps, lending, staking, strategies, signals, and support. However, there are notable gaps: no lend_withdraw, no direct way to close a lending position, no spot order cancellation (though aggregator-based swaps may not need it), and a general lack of tiered account management. The huge number of tools makes it hard to identify missing lifecycle steps.

Resources