TheStrat for agents

sector_analysis

Sector rotation by participation: a sector ETF + its holdings on one timeframe.

Returns the ETF's own state (scenario, color, last 3 bars, signals in force), the most-2s
split of the holdings (1 / 2u / 2d / 3, 2u red, 2d green), simultaneous breaks and
simultaneous setups across ETF + holdings with majority flags, and a `text` summary.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`etf`	Yes	The sector ETF ticker, e.g. XLE. Include its bars in the basket.
`now`	No	Current time, ISO 8601. Decides if the last bar is still open. Default: the server clock.
`as_of`	No	Optional ISO time. Use only bars that start at or before this time (replay a past bar).
`basket`	Yes	Bars per symbol on ONE timeframe, oldest first: {"XLE": [...], "XOM": [...], ...}. Same bar format as find_signals. Limits: 60 symbols, 500 bars per symbol (10 to 50 are enough). Swing: a sector ETF + its holdings on W. Intraday: SPY QQQ DIA IWM on 30 or 60.
`timeframe`	No	Timeframe of the bars: 5, 15, 30, 60, D, W, M, Q or Y.	W

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return composition, including ETF state, holding splits, simultaneous breaks/setups, majority flags, and a text summary, but it does not state side effects, permissions, error behavior, or deterministic constraints.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then lists the return contents without generic filler. It is appropriately sized, though the return sentence is dense with domain jargon.

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?

For a complex multi-symbol analysis tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level account of what is returned and emphasizes one timeframe. However, it leaves important domain terms and output organization unexplained, and it does not compensate for the lack of usage guidance or annotations.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including the ETF, basket format, timeframe, and time controls. The description adds only the high-level idea of ETF plus holdings on one timeframe and does not supplement the parameter definitions.

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 identifies the resource and scope: a sector ETF plus its holdings analyzed on one timeframe for sector rotation by participation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as find_signals or classify_bars, so it falls short of the highest clarity tier.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The schema contains useful limits and examples, but the description itself does not say when this tool is the right choice or when another sibling should be used instead.

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

All TheStrat for agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?