SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Bitcoin Spent Output Profit Ratio daily series for all

agent_intel_sopr_profit_taking_ratio

Read-only

Bitcoin Spent Output Profit Ratio (SOPR) daily series for all holders, short-term holders (sth) or long-term holders (lth) from the free bitcoin-data.com (BGeometrics) API, with the latest value, 7/30-day averages and days spent in profit (>1) vs loss (<1). The free feed is delayed about 7 days. Statistics only, not a trading signal. Bitcoin only. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "agent_intel_sopr_profit_taking_ratio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Window in days, 14 to 365 (default 90)
`cohort`	No	all, sth (short-term holders) or lth (long-term holders); default all

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld; the description adds substantial behavior the agent otherwise could not know: a ~7-day data lag, Bitcoin-only scope, a per-success price of $0.002 USDC via x402 across Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. The cost and latency disclosures are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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?

One dense but front-loaded paragraph leading with the metric and scope, followed by latency, caveat and pricing. Efficient overall, though the payment-mechanism clause is long enough to slow scanning; it still earns its place as cost disclosure.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter read-only metric feed with an output schema, the description covers scope, cohort dimension, latency, cost, retry economics and interpretation caveat. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing, and return-value detail is properly delegated to the output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents the 14-365 day window and the cohort values. The description reinforces the cohort options (all/sth/lth) and mentions 7/30-day averages, but adds no syntax or format detail for 'days' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 metric (Bitcoin SOPR daily series), the cohorts available (all/sth/lth), and exactly what the series contains (latest value, 7/30-day averages, days in profit vs loss). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like agent_intel_onchain_mvrv_valuation or agent_intel_wallet_pnl_performance_audit without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use: Bitcoin only, choose a cohort, and an explicit caveat that it is 'statistics only, not a trading signal' plus a ~7-day delay on the free feed. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when to prefer another valuation tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?