Central Command — x402 Trading Intelligence

External Signal Webhook

cc.external_signal

Destructive

Call cc.external_signal — Public-facing webhook endpoint for TradingView alerts, custom bots, and third-party signal providers. Normalizes and forwards to execution. Purpose: Public-facing webhook endpoint for TradingView alerts, custom bots, and third-party signal providers. Normalizes and forwards to execution. Behavior: DESTRUCTIVE. Normalizes the signal and routes toward trade execution for the authenticated account. Can open/close positions. Auth: X-Api-Key required (and linked exchange credentials for execution actions). Cost: $0.005 USDC per successful call (x402 Base USDC pay-per-use or prepaid X-Api-Key balance). Linked Connect keys are free. This is billing, not a side effect. Rate limit: 60/min (per API key). Tier: standard. Returns: Proxied execution response: signal received, validated, normalized, and forwarded to trade engine. Guidelines: Use for research / signal context. Pair with cc.agent_strategy (paper) before any live order. Do not invent fills from this data alone. Tags: webhook, tradingview, alerts, automation, signals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No	Parameter `size` (number). Optional.
`action`	Yes	buy, sell, close Required.
`symbol`	Yes	Parameter `symbol` (string). Required.
`__x_payment`	No	Optional x402 payment proof (same value as X-PAYMENT header). Use when retrying after HTTP 402 if your MCP client cannot set custom headers. Not a business parameter. Optional.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True when the gateway HTTP status is 2xx.
`data`	No	Parsed JSON body from the endpoint (shape varies by slug).
`error`	No	Error message when ok is false.
`status`	Yes	Upstream HTTP status from x402-gateway.
`billing`	No	Optional payment / cost metadata when present.
`endpoint`	Yes	Catalog slug that was invoked (e.g. funding-rates).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description elaborates by stating 'Behavior: DESTRUCTIVE. Normalizes the signal and routes toward trade execution... Can open/close positions.' It also adds auth requirements, cost, and rate limits, enriching the behavioral profile beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, Behavior, Auth, Cost, Rate limit, Returns, Guidelines), but the opening sentence redundantly repeats the Purpose section almost verbatim. This minor inefficiency prevents a perfect score.

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?

Covers all critical operational aspects—purpose, behavior, auth, cost, rate limiting, return semantics, and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value detail, and the description provides a high-level summary of the proxied response.

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 description need not restate parameter details. It does not provide additional per-parameter context, but the schema already documents each field with basic descriptions, hence a baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a public-facing webhook endpoint for TradingView alerts and external signal providers, with the specific action of normalizing and forwarding to execution. This distinct verb+resource framing differentiates it from siblings like cc.central_signal or cc.trade_builder.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidelines: 'Use for research / signal context. Pair with cc.agent_strategy (paper) before any live order. Do not invent fills from this data alone.' This names an alternative tool for paper trading and warns against using the signal alone for fills, covering both when and when-not to use.

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

All Central Command — x402 Trading Intelligence 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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping or unclear boundaries. The AI chat tools cc.squirrel_chat, cc.squirrel_chat_v2, and cc.openclaw_chat all provide conversational trading assistance with near-identical descriptions, while cc.central_signal and cc.external_signal both normalize signals for execution. Additionally, cc.asset_scanner, cc.auto_fetch_market_data, cc.data_tools, and cc.ma_fetch all supply technical indicator data with significant overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the 'cc.' prefix and use snake_case consistently, which creates a uniform feel. However, naming style mixes nouns (cc.asset_scanner, cc.data_tools) with verbs (cc.auto_fetch, cc.list_catalog) and compound forms (cc.strategy_backtest, cc.trade_builder), so it is not a strict verb_noun pattern. Minor deviations keep it from a 5.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server is well beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 and even above the 'heavy' 16-25 range. While the trading intelligence domain can be broad, this count feels overstuffed rather than curated, especially given the many overlapping data and AI tools.

Completeness3/5

The core trading workflow is covered: market data, technical analysis, signals, strategy backtesting, paper trading, and live execution all have tools. However, there is no dedicated account management tool (e.g., get_balance, list_positions) and no explicit delete_strategy, with these operations buried inside cc.agent_strategy's action parameter. Notable gaps remain for a complete lifecycle.

Resources

Need Help?