Wicked MCP server

sentiment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the crypto Fear & Greed Index reading, with optional history up to 90 days. Use it as a market-mood signal rather than for asset-specific direction.

Instructions

[Trading Data API] Free, no signup required. Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me), current reading + optional history.

Example: /v1/sentiment?limit=7

Use when you want the crypto Fear & Greed reading as a quick market-mood signal. Not for asset-specific direction (use momentum_score).

Behavior: read-only and free; no key or payment needed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sentiment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Optional. Number of days of history (default 1, max 90).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotent, but the description adds materially new facts beyond them: the upstream source, that it is free, and that no API key or payment is needed. It could still say more about refresh cadence or what the response contains, but the extra context is genuinely valuable.

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?

Purpose and usage routing are front-loaded, followed by the example and behavior notes. It is efficiently sized, though the raw endpoint path is slightly redundant for a tool-calling audience.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single optional parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers source, scope, usage, and access requirements. Only minor gaps remain, such as update frequency or the shape of the returned index reading.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains limit as days of history with default 1 and max 90. The description's example "/v1/sentiment?limit=7" and "optional history" reinforce but add little semantic detail 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?

States the specific resource and source: "Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me), current reading + optional history." This is a concrete verb+resource that distinguishes it from the many trading-data siblings such as momentum_score and market_overview.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("as a quick market-mood signal") and when not to ("Not for asset-specific direction (use momentum_score)"), naming the alternative tool. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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

Deploy Server