get_backtest_runGet details for a backtest run by run_id (must belong to this user's agent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | Backtest run ID from run_backtest or list_backtest_runs |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| run_id | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| summary | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / descriptionPrevious value: -"Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields."New value: +"Structured result. Error responses include error and message."Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "run_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds a meaningful access-scope constraint that annotations do not cover: the run must belong to this user's agent, which tells the agent an ownership check can fail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and keyed on the required parameter, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial single-parameter lookup, though 'details' stays slightly vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema so return shape needn't be described, and the description states the one non-obvious constraint (ownership). Little else is required for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains run_id comes from run_backtest or list_backtest_runs, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the ownership condition on the id rather than adding format or validation detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a backtest run') and scopes it by run_id, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_backtest_runs. It does not name the alternative tool explicitly, but the singular/plural contrast is obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied - fetch a single run once you have its run_id - and the ownership constraint hints at a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_backtest_runs or run_backtest guidance in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.