Gemral Edge

Crypto Chart Pattern Signals

scan_crypto_patterns

Quantitative cryptocurrency chart pattern detection identifying technical formations, direction, and probabilistic confidence scores across major trading pairs (34 crypto pairs only). With an API-plan key each pattern also carries reference levels (entry/target/invalidation) and a price zone (high/low) for charting overlays; these describe the detected formation and are not trade recommendations. Read-only evidence.

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": "scan_crypto_patterns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`symbol`	No	Trading pair, e.g. BTC/USDT, ETH/USDT	BTC/USDT
`timeframe`	No	Chart timeframe	4h

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	No	Free-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
`results`	Yes	Tool result payload (read-only evidence). Shape varies by tool; scoring weights are never exposed.
`history_limit`	No	Present when the license limits history depth: earliest_allowed date, history_days and how many older items were removed.
`deprecated_fields`	No	Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: an API-plan key gates reference levels and price zones, and reference levels 'are not trade recommendations'. However, it closes with 'Read-only evidence', which directly conflicts with the declared readOnlyHint=false annotation, leaving the agent unsure whether the call is side-effect free. The contradiction undercuts otherwise good disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the plan-gated extras, then the disclaimer. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but every clause (pair coverage, plan gating, non-recommendation disclaimer) carries information an agent would otherwise guess wrong.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers plan tiering and the semantics of the extra fields. It still omits how to choose a timeframe, what limit controls, and when this tool should be preferred over the other signal-oriented siblings, which matters for a signal-scanning tool sitting among 30+ peers.

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 67%: symbol and timeframe are documented in the schema, while limit has no description anywhere. The description only indirectly touches parameters via 'major trading pairs (34 crypto pairs only)', constraining the symbol domain but saying nothing about timeframe choice or the limit/maximum of 25. It neither compensates for the gap nor misleads.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Quantitative cryptocurrency chart pattern detection') and enumerates what is detected: technical formations, direction, and probabilistic confidence scores. That is clearly distinct from the nearest siblings (get_breakout_watch, get_top_signals, get_crypto_funding_extremes), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement 'across major trading pairs (34 crypto pairs only)', which effectively tells the agent when the tool does not apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-prefer-a-different-signal-tool guidance. The agent must infer from the sibling names whether a chart-pattern scan or a breakout/signal feed is the right call.

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

All Gemral Edge tools Inspect

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.