S/R levels via fractal analysis ($0.005 USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | BTCUSDT | |
| payment | No | Optional. Base64 x402 payment payload you signed yourself (ERC-3009 TransferWithAuthorization, USDC on Base). Call without it once to receive the payment requirements, sign those, then call again with this argument. This server forwards the payload and never holds a key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / paymentAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional. Base64 x402 payment payload you signed yourself (ERC-3009 TransferWithAuthorization, USDC on Base). Call without it once to receive the payment requirements, sign those, then call again with this argument. This server forwards the payload and never holds a key.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because there are no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call costs $0.005 USDC and uses fractal analysis for S/R levels, but it does not describe the output format, the sign-and-pay workflow, or return/error behavior beyond what is implied by the name.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to purpose, method, or pricing. This is an appropriately sized description for a low-complexity getter.
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?
For a tool with only two parameters and no required arguments, the description is close to adequate when supplemented by the payment schema and default symbol. Still, it lacks a description of the output and does not route the agent to related tools, so it is more minimum-viable than complete.
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?
The schema describes only the 'payment' parameter, leaving 'symbol' undocumented by both description and schema. The symbol parameter is inferable from the name and default of BTCUSDT, but the description adds no parameter-level clarity and does not compensate for the 50% schema coverage.
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 tells an agent that the tool computes support/resistance levels using fractal analysis, so the resource and method are clear. However, it relies on the abbreviation 'S/R' and does not explicitly differentiate the tool from related technical-analysis getters.
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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_technical_indicators or get_liquidation_levels. There is no statement of intended context, exclusions, or alternatives, so usage guidance is essentially absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct metrics, but the paid/free sample pairs (get_crypto_prices/try_crypto_prices, etc.) and overlapping summary tools (get_market_overview, get_market_pulse, get_overnight_risk_brief) create some selection ambiguity. Descriptions list components, so an agent can disambiguate with effort, but the boundaries between bundles and single-purpose tools are not always obvious.
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern: get_ for data retrieval, try_ for free samples, and watch_condition for persistent monitoring. All names use lowercase snake_case with no mixed conventions, making the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
34 tools is well above the comfortable range for a typical MCP server and feels heavy even for a broad crypto data domain. The count is inflated by paid/free sample duplicates and multiple bundle variants that could have been consolidated.
The surface covers a wide range of crypto data: prices, funding, sentiment, arbitrage, derivatives, on-chain metrics, signal history, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist—such as no obvious generic signal discovery tool or order-book/trade-level data—but the core domain of market data with checkable records is thoroughly served.