Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coinopai-mcp

coinopai-mcp

by forgemeshlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_crypto_signals

Access Kronos model context for BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA to support trade decisions using calibrated range, risk state, and audit record. Cost: $0.05 USDC.

Instructions

Latest Kronos model context for BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA. Directional values are supporting context, not standalone trade instructions; use them with the calibrated range, risk state, and audit record. Costs $0.05 USDC.

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": "get_crypto_signals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.05 USDC) and that outputs are supporting context. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or response structure. Simple tool but incomplete transparency.

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 sentences, each essential: first states the tool's core output, second adds usage caveat and cost. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Lacks output schema, and description is vague about exact output fields ('directional values', 'Kronos model context'). Doesn't explain 'audit record' or 'calibrated range' references. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for rich output.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the affiliate ID's purpose ('affiliate earns commission') and cost implication, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 'Latest Kronos model context for BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA,' specifying a verb and resource with explicit asset list. It distinguishes from siblings like get_crypto_decision by emphasizing 'supporting context, not standalone trade instructions.'

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 says to use directional values 'with the calibrated range, risk state, and audit record,' providing integration guidance. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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