Crypto Data & Market Analysis Agent

get_market_brief

Read-onlyIdempotent

The verdict in one call, not the ingredients. Composes positioning (funding and open interest with their percentiles), sentiment, implied volatility, the macro regime and the cost of execution into a single stance — risk-on, risk-off, fragile or neutral — with a confidence level, the signals that produced it and what would invalidate it. The rules are DETERMINISTIC, not a model opinion: the same numbers always give the same verdict, and every driver is returned with its value and its reading, so any part of it can be argued with rather than taken on faith. "Fragile" is a state rather than a direction: crowded positioning TOGETHER WITH cheap implied volatility, meaning the market is leaning one way and paying almost nothing for protection. A source that fails lowers confidence and is named under "missing" instead of being counted as a neutral zero. Percentile context exists only for BTC; for other coins the level is reported without the crowded label.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coin`	No	Coin, e.g. "BTC" (default), "ETH", "SOL".
`sizeUsd`	No	Trade size the execution cost is measured at, in US dollars. Defaults to 100000.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	Yes	ISO timestamp the brief was computed at.
`coin`	Yes
`stance`	Yes	fragile is a state, not a direction: crowded positioning together with cheap implied volatility.
`drivers`	Yes	Every signal that fed the verdict, so it can be argued with instead of taken on faith.
`missing`	Yes	Sources that did not answer. A missing signal is never counted as a neutral one.
`verdict`	Yes	The read in one or two sentences.
`tradeable`	No	null when no venue could be read.
`confidence`	Yes
`invalidation`	Yes	Concrete, numeric conditions that would make this verdict wrong.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds rich behavioral details: deterministic rules (same numbers always give same verdict), handling of failed sources (named under 'missing' rather than neutral zero), definition of 'fragile', and BTC-only percentile context. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. The opening sentence immediately sets the purpose and differentiates from siblings. Subsequent sentences efficiently explain composition, determinism, the 'fragile' definition, and important edge cases. No wasted words; the length is justified by the complexity.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how the verdict is derived, its deterministic nature, failure handling, and coin-specific behavior. There are no significant gaps that would prevent correct selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (coin and sizeUsd). The description adds one meaningful semantic constraint not in the schema: percentile context exists only for BTC, and other coins get the level without the crowded label. This enhances understanding of the coin parameter. The sizeUsd parameter is not additionally clarified, but the schema covers it.

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's purpose: composing multiple market signals into a single stance (risk-on, risk-off, fragile, neutral) with confidence level and invalidating conditions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying 'The verdict in one call, not the ingredients,' which differentiates it from raw-data tools like get_derivatives or get_implied_volatility.

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 implies when to use the tool ('verdict in one call' vs. 'ingredients'), giving context for synthesis rather than raw data. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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

All Crypto Data & Market Analysis Agent tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct domains (network, market, derivatives, macro, on-chain flows), and overlapping tools like get_derivatives vs get_derivatives_aggregate are clearly differentiated by scope and detail level. However, get_crypto_market and get_market_dominance both cover market-wide data, and get_btc_network and get_eth_whale_flows both touch on-chain activity, which could cause some confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent get_ prefix with descriptive nouns (e.g., get_btc_network, get_defi_overview, get_execution_cost). The pattern is uniform across all 16 tools, with no camelCase or inconsistent verb styles, making it very predictable for an agent.

Tool Count5/5

With 16 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent domain of crypto market analysis—prices, on-chain, derivatives, macro, sentiment, and execution. Each tool addresses a distinct analytical need, and the count is well-scoped for a comprehensive agent, not excessive given the breadth of features.

Completeness4/5

The surface is remarkably complete for a market analysis agent, covering spot, derivatives, on-chain, macro, sentiment, history, and execution costs. Minor gaps exist: no direct tool for decentralized exchange (DEX) trading volumes or specific coin list discovery, and no tool for order book depth beyond the execution cost tool. However, agents can work around these with existing tools.

Resources

Need Help?