crypto-signal
Server Details
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: crypto-signal
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lazymac2x/crypto-signal-api
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Tools are distinct: one provides raw indicators, another gives a trading signal, the third scans multiple pairs. However, get_crypto_signal could be seen as a higher-level version of get_crypto_indicators, creating minor potential for confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_crypto_indicators, get_crypto_signal, screen_crypto_market. No mixing of conventions.
With 3 tools, the set is small but appropriate for a focused domain of crypto technical analysis and signals. Slightly limited, but each tool has a clear role.
The set covers indicator retrieval, signal generation, and market screening. Missing features like parameter configuration or historical data, but the core workflow for obtaining signals is complete.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_crypto_indicatorsBInspect
Get detailed technical indicators (RSI, MACD, EMA, Bollinger Bands, etc.) for a crypto pair
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair (e.g. BTCUSDT) | BTCUSDT |
| interval | No | Candle interval | 1h |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'gets' indicators, implying a read operation, but does not confirm read-only nature, data sources, freshness, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to assess safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and examples, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should describe the return format or structure. It does not; it only vaguely mentions 'detailed technical indicators'. No information on error handling, pagination, or data shape, making it incomplete for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for 'symbol' and 'interval'. The listing of indicators is helpful but does not elaborate on how parameters affect results. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed technical indicators for a crypto pair, listing specific examples like RSI, MACD, EMA, and Bollinger Bands. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_signal (likely aggregates signals) and screen_crypto_market (likely scans markets).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not clarify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_crypto_signalBInspect
Get a buy/sell/hold trading signal for a cryptocurrency pair with technical analysis
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair (e.g. BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT) | BTCUSDT |
| interval | No | Candle interval (1m,5m,15m,1h,4h,1d) | 1h |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'technical analysis' but gives no details on methodology, input requirements, or what happens during processing (e.g., data source, computation, or limitations). This is too minimal for a tool that likely involves an algorithm.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks completeness. It does not explain what the signal output looks like (e.g., buy/sell/hold with strength), any prerequisites, or potential side effects. For a trading tool, this is insufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'with technical analysis' but does not enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides (symbol and interval). No additional meaning or constraints are introduced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'trading signal' for a cryptocurrency pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_crypto_indicators' (likely raw indicators) and 'screen_crypto_market' (market screening) by focusing on a single signal with technical analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining a trading signal but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_crypto_indicators' or 'screen_crypto_market'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screen_crypto_marketCInspect
Scan top cryptocurrencies by volume and return trading signals for each
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of top coins to scan (max 50) | |
| interval | No | Candle interval | 1h |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions scanning by volume but does not disclose side effects (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, or any mutability). The lack of behavioral detail makes it insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the action and result without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description omits important context such as the format of trading signals, data volume, and how results are structured. It barely meets the minimal requirements for a tool with 2 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters having clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Scan' and resource 'top cryptocurrencies by volume', with a clear outcome 'return trading signals'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_crypto_indicators and get_crypto_signal, which weakens the clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferable. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!