Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

get_crypto_signal

One complete crypto opportunity by signal_id (from /crypto/scan): classification, opportunity_score (0-100 heuristic, not a win probability), entry zone, stop-loss, take-profit, reward:risk, positive and negative factors, conditions and invalidation conditions, execution economics (net maker/taker), ML horizon scores with evidence status, entry validity versus expected hold, and upstream execution metadata. Market intelligence only: no execution, no custody, no position sizing. Paid per request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signal_idYesSignal id from scan_crypto_market, e.g. 'sig_a1b2c3d4e5f6'. Stable across versions of the same opportunity; an unknown id returns 400 and is not charged.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe validated input echoed back, i.e. the signal_id you asked for.
adviceYesThe full published advice, passed through 1:1 from the upstream system. entry_zone, stop_loss, take_profit and reward_risk are null for WATCH/NEUTRAL/AVOID, because those classifications carry no concrete entry setup. Buying such a signal is still a valid $0.01 call and a complete answer: you pay for the assessment (classification, score, factors, conditions, economics, ML), not for the presence of a setup.
checked_atYesWhen we produced this answer (ISO 8601, UTC). The only ISO timestamp in the payload; every other timestamp is unix seconds.
disclaimerYesOur product boundary, verbatim in every paid advice response: market intelligence only, no execution, no custody, no position sizing, and opportunity_score is a heuristic rather than a calibrated win probability.
source_as_ofYesUnix seconds — freshness of the upstream advice system's answer.
source_disclaimerNoVerbatim disclaimer of the upstream advice system, passed through unedited.
recommended_next_callYesMachine-readable next step in the chain (scan → signal → validate → evidence → check), so you can follow the workflow without documentation. null means there is explicitly nothing useful to call now; next_check_after then says when to come back.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the opportunity_score is a heuristic (not probability), that the tool provides market intelligence only (no execution, custody, or position sizing), and that it is paid per request with 400 for unknown IDs. This is good behavioral context, though rate limits and authentication are not mentioned.

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 core purpose and lists many fields, but remains well-structured with clear sentences. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, earning its place.

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?

Given the single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites (signal from scan), return fields, and constraints (no execution, paid). No important gaps are apparent.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the signal_id format example, stability across versions, and error handling (unknown ID returns 400 without charge). This enriches understanding of the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a specific crypto signal by signal_id and lists many fields it returns. It distinguishes from scan_crypto_market by specifying it is for individual signal retrieval, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like check_crypto_signal or validate_crypto_signal.

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?

The description mentions that the signal comes from /crypto/scan and is for market intelligence only, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_crypto_signal, nor does it specify prerequisites beyond having a signal_id.

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

All agentdata-nl toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and domain: country-specific company checks (check_ch_company, check_fr_company, etc.), insolvency checks, crypto signals, x402 network tools, etc. Descriptions are detailed and make boundaries clear, with no two tools appearing to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow very consistent patterns: 'check_<country>_<entity>' for registers, 'crypto_*' for crypto intelligence, 'x402_*' for x402 network functions, 'screen_*' for screening, and a few free-form names like 'verify_eu_vat' and 'lookup_lei' that still fit the verb_noun style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is high but justified by the broad scope: the server aggregates many country-specific checks, insolvency registers, crypto tools, x402 monitoring, and auxiliary functions (like phone number buying, LEI lookup). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not excessive given the coverage. A slight reduction could be possible by merging some country checks, but overall it's reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major European company registers (CH, UK, FR, NL, NO, PL, CZ, FI), insolvency checks (NL, FR), sanctions screening, VAT validation, crypto market intelligence, and x402 network tools. It acknowledges gaps (e.g., no German check) and provides fallback tools like 'screen_eu_supplier' and 'file_agent_want'. Minor missing pieces (e.g., Italian company check) keep it from a perfect 5.

Resources