Skip to main content
Glama

Coil Scanner

by trade.coil

get_crypto_night

Overnight crypto continuation PREVIEW: the #1 session-momentum coin (of the top-5) heading into the 20:00 UTC signal across 81 Robinhood-tradable coins, plus the BTC 200-day regime gate, the pre/post-signal phase and the pre-registered study receipts — the ranking beat its random null at every fee tier in the cold study, and at Robinhood retail fees the studied trade was REFUTED (the refutation ships in the read). A state read, not advice. Full top-5: get_crypto_night_live (x402, pay-per-call).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It notes 'A state read, not advice' which implies non-mutating, but lacks detail on output format, error behavior, or rate limits. The promotional language about study results adds noise but does disclose the refutation aspect.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose and promotional, including study results and fee-tier comparisons that do not directly help an agent understand the tool's operation. It lacks a clean, front-loaded structure and contains redundant marketing phrases, making it less concise than needed.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description does enumerate key elements (coin, regime gate, phases, receipts) but not their exact structure or how to interpret them. It's sufficient for a high-level understanding but leaves ambiguity about the return payload.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty object), the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't introduce any parameter-related confusion.

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 the tool provides an overnight crypto continuation preview, specifying the #1 session-momentum coin, BTC regime gate, phases, and study receipts. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_crypto_night_live by noting the full top-5 is available there, making the purpose specific.

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?

The description implies this is the preview version and get_crypto_night_live is the pay-per-call full top-5, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other sibling tools like get_crypto_day or get_crypto_trend. The guidance is limited to mentioning the live alternative.

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

All Coil Scanner toolsInspect
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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most market-data and storefront tools are cleanly scoped, but there is meaningful overlap: get_full_board and get_engine_feed are near-duplicates, get_buy_list overlaps with get_morning_brief's candidate list, and get_orders / get_order_status are identical NotOffered stubs. The free/live twin pairs are clearly labeled so agents can distinguish latency/payment intent, but the sheer number of related reads creates selection friction.

Naming Consistency4/5

The large get_* data family is very predictable (get_stock_read, get_stock_read_live, get_rotation, get_rotation_live), and storefront ools use clear verb_noun actions (add_to_cart, remove_from_cart, save_memory). Minor deviations like checkout_handoff and the get_live_setup / get_live_rules naming (which could be misread as *_live twins) keep it from a perfect score.

Tool Count2/5

46 tools is well abovethe 25+ threshold for a coherent toset; at leat13 are direc live twins of free readable plus a 14-tool storefont/memory subdomain. Many could be consoliated into ingle tools with a delay/live param or a single storefront resource, making the surface feel bloated for agents.

Completeness4/5

The market-data surface is very comphehensive: regime, buy-list, hold-state, rotation, sector, stock, crypto day/night/trend/setups, full board, archived board, changes, and engine-feed coverage leave few dead ends for the stated trading-intelligence purpose. Storefont is adequate but has minor acknowledged gaps—orders/order-status are NotOffered stubs and session memories have no update/delete—so it is not a perfect 5.

Resources