Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
crypto-deep-research

crypto-deep-research

by alikula37
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_analysis

Execute a single crypto market analysis for a given coin, such as technical, liquidations, news, volumes, or whales, using a selected timeframe and lookback period.

Instructions

Tek bir analizi calistirir (ornek: technical, liquidations, news, volumes, whales...).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "coin": "<coin>"
    },
    "name": "run_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinYes
analysisNotechnical
timeframeNo1d
lookback_daysNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says it runs an analysis but doesn't disclose execution side effects, expected latency, whether it's read-only, output format, or error behavior. Major gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Single concise sentence with the key examples front-loaded. Efficient, though it could devote a clause to the required 'coin' parameter.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, and only one of four parameters hinted at, the description is incomplete for a 4-param execution tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The only parameter hint is the analysis-type examples ('technical, liquidations, news, volumes, whales'). The required 'coin', plus 'timeframe' and 'lookback_days', are entirely undocumented in the description, and no enum values are formally given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: runs a single analysis, with concrete examples of analysis types (technical, liquidations, news, volumes, whales). However it doesn't differentiate from siblings like list_analyses or deep_research explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with a batch/list operation, but the agent gets no explicit direction on when to pick this over list_analyses or deep_research.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools