list_backtest_runsList recent completed or running backtest runs for this agent across MCP, chat, voice, and API. Use get_backtest_run for one run's details; use run_backtest to start a new run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max runs to return (default 20, max 100) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runs | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| success | 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: +{
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "runs": {
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+}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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to non-terminal states (completed or running) and span four distinct channels (MCP, chat, voice, API), which the agent could not infer from annotations or schema.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns before the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented. The description supplies the remaining scope and routing context, leaving nothing an agent needs to call 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?
Only one parameter (limit) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents default (20) and max (100). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (list) and resource (backtest runs) with clear scope: recent runs in completed or running state, across MCP, chat, voice, and API. An agent can distinguish this listing tool from get_backtest_run and run_backtest without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly routes to alternatives: get_backtest_run for a single run's details and run_backtest to start a new run. This names both the read-alternative and the write-alternative with the conditions that select them.
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.