Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Trading Signals MCP

Trading Signals MCP

by gdietsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Opening Range ($0.005)

opening_range
Read-only

Calculate the opening range high, low, and size from OHLCV bars, then identify breakout state, first breakout, and 1x/2x extension targets for the latest session.

Instructions

Price: $0.005 USDC per call on Base, paid automatically via x402 from X402_PRIVATE_KEY. Opening range (first N minutes) high/low/size for the latest session in your bars, breakout state, first breakout and 1x/2x extension targets. Failed calls (4xx/5xx) are not charged. Informational only, not investment advice.

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": {
      "bars": "<bars>"
    },
    "name": "opening_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tzNoIANA timezone for sessions (default America/New_York)
barsYesOHLCV bars, oldest first: {t (ISO-8601 or epoch s/ms), o, h, l, c, v} or [t,o,h,l,c,v]. Max 5000.
minutesNoOpening range minutes (default 15)
sessionEndNoHH:MM in tz (default 16:00)
sessionStartNoHH:MM in tz (default 09:30)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context the annotations do not carry: a $0.005 per-call price, automatic x402 payment drawn from the X402_PRIVATE_KEY environment variable, and a refund rule that 4xx/5xx failures are not charged. It omits rate limits and latency characteristics, but the payment/auth disclosure is substantial.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying load: cost/payment mechanics, computed output, and billing/disclaimer terms. The price is front-loaded, though it duplicates the title's '($0.005)' and could have led with what the tool returns rather than what it costs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (range high/low/size, breakout state, first breakout, 1x/2x targets). Inputs are fully specified in the schema, read-only behavior is covered by annotations, and cost, payment path, and failure billing are all stated. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (bars, minutes, tz, sessionStart, sessionEnd) are already documented, including defaults and formats. The description only echoes the 'first N minutes' notion via the opening-range framing and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific computation and resource: 'Opening range (first N minutes) high/low/size for the latest session in your bars, breakout state, first breakout and 1x/2x extension targets.' That is concrete enough for an agent to know exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling backtest_opening_range_breakout, so the 'latest session' scoping is the only implicit differentiator.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers you should call this when you already hold OHLCV bars and want current-session opening-range levels. There is no explicit 'use this when / do not use this when' guidance and no mention of the backtest alternative, leaving the agent to reason from the sibling name alone.

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