Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coinopai-mcp

coinopai-mcp

by forgemeshlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

check_trade_preflight

Validate market conditions, cooldown, and data freshness before generating crypto trade signals. Prevents outdated or premature decisions.

Instructions

Step 1 of the auditable decision loop. Checks market state, cooldown, data freshness, and model context before calling get_crypto_decision. Costs $0.05 USDC.

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": "check_trade_preflight"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesSymbol to check: BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, or ADA
affiliate_idNoOptional Pyrimid affiliate ID (af_xxxxx). Affiliate earns a commission from within the listed price — no extra cost to you.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.6

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC) and what checks are performed, but does not mention idempotency, failure behavior, or side effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, zero wasted words. Cost information is efficiently integrated.

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?

The description covers key aspects for a preflight check tool, but lacks details on return values or output structure given no output schema. Otherwise complete for its complexity.

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 description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. The listed symbol values and affiliate ID explanation are already present in 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 defines the tool as 'Step 1 of the auditable decision loop' and lists specific checks (market state, cooldown, data freshness, model context), distinguishing it from siblings like get_crypto_decision.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly positions the tool as the first step before calling get_crypto_decision, providing clear usage context. However, it does not exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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