Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Trading Signals MCP

Trading Signals MCP

by gdietsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

VWAP + Bands ($0.005)

vwap_bands
Read-only

Calculate VWAP and standard-deviation bands from OHLCV bars to gauge price versus volume-weighted average, including z-score and band position for session-anchored or full-range analysis.

Instructions

Price: $0.005 USDC per call on Base, paid automatically via x402 from X402_PRIVATE_KEY. VWAP with standard-deviation bands from your OHLCV bars (session-anchored or full), z-score and band position. 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": "vwap_bands"
  }
}

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.
bandsNoBand multipliers, default [1, 2]
anchorNosession (reset each tz date, default) or all
includeSeriesNoReturn the last 500 VWAP points

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/not-idempotent; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the $0.005 per-call charge on Base, automatic x402 payment from X402_PRIVATE_KEY, and that 4xx/5xx failures are not billed. It still does not say whether the payment itself is what makes calls non-idempotent, but the billing model is well disclosed.

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?

Four compact sentences with no filler; pricing is front-loaded and the computation and disclaimer follow. The price/credential sentence is somewhat operational rather than descriptive, but it earns its place given the paid-call model.

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?

For a five-parameter, schema-fully-documented compute tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, the key derived outputs (z-score, band position), billing behavior, and the anchoring modes. Only the pagination/truncation behavior of includeSeries is left to the schema.

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 are already documented. The description reinforces the anchor choice ('session-anchored or full') and the bar input format, but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states, 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 (VWAP with standard-deviation bands) over a specific input (OHLCV bars) and enumerates derived outputs (z-score, band position). It does not differentiate against any sibling tool such as atr_stop or opening_range, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only framing is 'Informational only, not investment advice', which is a disclaimer rather than routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the purpose statement 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