Central Command — x402 Trading Intelligence

Crypto Fear & Greed Index

cc.fear_greed

Read-onlyIdempotent

Call cc.fear_greed — Crypto market Fear & Greed composite index (0-100) with historical values and trend direction. 30-min cache. Purpose: Crypto market Fear & Greed composite index (0-100) with historical values and trend direction. 30-min cache. Behavior: READ-ONLY. Does not place orders, move funds, or mutate your exchange account. Responses may be cached (~1800s). Auth: X-Api-Key or x402 payment proof (X-PAYMENT / __x_payment). Anonymous unauthenticated calls receive HTTP 402 with payment accepts. Cost: $0.0005 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: 120/min (per API key). Tier: standard. Returns: Current index value (0=extreme fear, 100=extreme greed) plus 7/30/90 day history. 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: sentiment, fear-greed, market-cycle, contrarian.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`__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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description significantly expands on the annotations by detailing that the operation is READ-ONLY, never places orders or moves funds, and includes caching (~1800s), authentication methods (X-Api-Key or x402), HTTP 402 behavior, cost ($0.0005 USDC), rate limits (120/min), and clarifies that billing is not a side effect. This adds substantial context beyond the inherent readOnlyHint and idempotentHint flags.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear labeled sections (Purpose, Behavior, Auth, Cost, Rate limit, Returns, Guidelines, Tags), but it contains a verbatim duplication of the opening sentence under 'Purpose,' which wastes space. The length is justified by the richness of information, but the redundancy prevents a higher 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?

Given the tool's complexity (auth, payment, caching, rate limits) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: return values (current index plus 7/30/90 day history), usage context, safety profile, and cost/payment details. This is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single optional __x_payment parameter (100% coverage), including its purpose and when to use it. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail; it only references the payment proof in the auth context. Therefore, the description adds no meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 'Crypto market Fear & Greed composite index (0-100) with historical values and trend direction' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by highlighting its unique sentiment index and historical/trend data, which is not implied by the title alone.

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?

Explicit guidelines state 'Use for research / signal context' and recommend pairing with cc.agent_strategy before live orders. It also warns against using the data alone to invent fills, effectively providing both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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?