get_mcp_compatibility_manifest
Return the versioned MCP compatibility manifest, including canonical tools, aliases, and JSON argument schemas for remote clients.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
aipricepatterns
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'Return' operation and notes the versioned nature, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description adds some value beyond the name but lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return the versioned MCP compatibility manifest') and then details contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless retrieval tool, the description is largely complete. It specifies the manifest contents and target audience (remote clients). However, it does not detail the output format or how versioning is handled, leaving minor gaps for a fully self-contained understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters and instead clarifies the return content, adding semantic value.
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 clearly states the tool returns a versioned MCP compatibility manifest with specific contents (canonical tools, aliases, JSON schemas). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_api_guide or pattern_search, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for remote clients needing machine-readable tool schemas, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The lack of explicit guidance lowers the score, though the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools inhabit overlapping territory: find_market_analogs, pattern_search, search_by_sketch, and get_candle_market_snapshot all relate to historical pattern matching, while get_trading_decision, get_trader_decision_v2, and get_live_polymarket_trade_decision all produce trade-oriented decisions. The descriptions add context, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong tool for a given request.
Naming Consistency3/5
The tools are consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but the naming conventions are mixed: many tools use get_<noun>, while others start with verbs like backtest, detect, find, forecast. Minor irregularities such as pattern_search and the v2 suffix in get_trader_decision_v2 also reduce predictability.
Tool Count4/5
Fifteen tools is within a reasonable size, and the server covers a broad domain: pattern search, regime detection, backtesting, track records, private datasets, live Polymarket decisions, and documentation. The count is not excessive, but some tools are functionally redundant enough that the set could be tightened.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the main evidence workflow well: discovering patterns, analyzing analogs, backtesting strategies, checking track records, and producing trading decisions. Minor gaps remain around private dataset management and there is no separate low-level raw candle query tool, but most core user journeys are supported.