Skip to main content
Glama
yantrix-ai

@praveen030686/data-apis-mcp

Get Crypto Deep Analysis

crypto_deep_analysis
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze cryptocurrency markets with on-chain metrics, whale movements, sentiment breakdown, and risk assessment for informed trading decisions.

Instructions

Get full market analysis including on-chain metrics, whale movements, sentiment breakdown, and risk assessment. Costs $0.10 USDC per request via x402 on Base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesCrypto symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, SOL)

Implementation Reference

  • The "crypto_deep_analysis" tool is registered and implemented in src/index.ts, fetching data from the CRYPTO_API URL.
      "crypto_deep_analysis",
      {
        title: "Get Crypto Deep Analysis",
        description: `Get full market analysis including on-chain metrics, whale movements, sentiment breakdown, and risk assessment.
    Costs $0.10 USDC per request via x402 on Base.`,
        inputSchema: {
          symbol: z.string().min(1).max(10).describe("Crypto symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, SOL)"),
        },
        annotations: { readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true },
      },
      async ({ symbol }) => {
        const data = await apiFetch(`${CRYPTO_API}/api/v1/deep-analysis/${symbol.toUpperCase()}`);
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }] };
      }
    );
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context: the monetary cost per request and the payment method ('via x402 on Base'), which isn't captured in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, response format, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds critical cost information. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential details without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints, but it's efficiently structured with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (deep market analysis), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully describes the single parameter. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., analysis format, data structure). The cost disclosure is helpful, but for a tool with no output schema, more context on expected results would enhance completeness. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter well-documented ('Crypto symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, SOL)'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get full market analysis including on-chain metrics, whale movements, sentiment breakdown, and risk assessment.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('full market analysis') with concrete components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crypto_ai_report' or 'crypto_get_signal', which might offer similar analyses.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a cost ('Costs $0.10 USDC per request via x402 on Base'), which is useful for budgeting, but doesn't specify scenarios where this deep analysis is preferred over simpler tools like 'crypto_get_price' or other crypto/finance siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yantrix-ai/x402-apis-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server