quantifyme

Browse Community Strategies (leaderboard)

browse_community

Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse the public community leaderboard of published strategies, ranked by a composite performance score (best first). No signup or key needed.

Copy-trade flow: call this to find a top strategy, then pass its `id` to
`one_shot` as `community_id` to deploy a live signal model running that
exact strategy in one call.

Args:
  limit: How many top entries to return (default 20, max 200).
  sort: Ranking metric, best-first — one of "composite" (default),
    "ret" (total return), "wr" (win rate), "sharpe", "n_trades". Mirrors
    the quantifyme.ai/community page's sortable columns, so an agent can
    pick the top strategy by the metric it cares about in one call. The
    sorted entries keep their `id`, so the winner is directly deployable
    via one_shot(community_id=...).

Returns:
  dict with:
    - scripts (list[dict]): ranked entries, best first. Each has:
        id (int — pass to one_shot as community_id), username, title,
        description, created_at, score, and metrics {total_ret,
        sharpe_strat, win_rate, n_trades, mdd, profit_factor}. SHOW the
        top few with their win_rate / total_ret so the user can pick one.
    - count (int).
    - metric (str): the sort key applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No		composite
`limit`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already declare safety. The description adds rich behavioral context: no signup required, public data, sorting behavior (best-first), and that it mirrors the community page. This significantly expands on annotations.

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?

Well-structured with main purpose first, then use case flow, parameter details, and return format. All sentences are informative, though the description is somewhat lengthy; still earns its place.

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?

For a browse/list tool with 2 simple parameters and a full output schema described, this is highly complete. It covers return structure (scripts, count, metric), script fields (id, username, title, etc.), and metrics. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It fully explains limit (default 20, max 200) and sort (list of options, defaults, and meaning of each metric like 'composite', 'ret', 'wr'). Provides context about mirroring the community page columns.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states it browses the public community leaderboard of published strategies ranked by composite score. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_strategy (search) and one_shot (deploy) by describing the copy-trade flow.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly indicates when to use: to find a top strategy for deployment via one_shot. Mentions no authentication needed. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons, but provides clear integration context.

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

All quantifyme tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though browse_community, find_strategy, and one_shot (community_id) are related and could cause confusion if descriptions are not read carefully. Overall well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun pattern (browse_community, find_strategy, generate_strategy, get_deploy_result, etc.). A few exceptions like 'one_shot' and 'top_up' break the pattern but are still clear and memorable.

Tool Count4/5

13 tools cover the major functions of a trading strategy platform (discover, generate, deploy, monitor, account management). The count feels appropriate, though 'stream_test' is diagnotic and may not be needed in all contexts.

Completeness3/5

Covers core workflows well—browse, find, generate, deploy, and get results. However, lacks tools to update or stop a deployed model, and there's no way to edit an existing strategy, leaving some lifecycle gaps.

Resources

Need Help?