TradingMCP

volume_confirmation_analysis

Analyzes trading volume to confirm price trends for a specified cryptocurrency, exchange, and timeframe.

Instructions

Detailed volume confirmation analysis for a specific coin.

Args: symbol: Coin symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT) exchange: Exchange name timeframe: Time frame for analysis

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "volume_confirmation_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`symbol`	Yes
`exchange`	No	KUCOIN
`timeframe`	No	15m

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.1Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'analysis' without indicating read-only status, data requirements, side effects, or any limitations. For a tool performing analysis, this is insufficient.

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 brief, but it lacks structure beyond a one-line purpose and an argument list. It could be more organized, but it is not verbose. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description should cover return values, interpretation, and constraints. It does not explain what 'volume confirmation analysis' entails or what the output looks like, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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?

The description's Args block merely restates parameter names with examples, adding no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, it fails to explain allowed values, formats, or constraints (e.g., symbol format, valid timeframes).

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?

The description states it performs 'Detailed volume confirmation analysis for a specific coin', which clearly identifies the verb (analysis) and resource (coin). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'volume_breakout_scanner' or 'smart_volume_scanner', which may also involve volume analysis.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The description is purely functional.

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