Algo Trade Analytics

evaluate_candidate

evaluate_candidate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare a candidate against baseline evidence for a required experiment protocolId. Declare trade-count floors in the protocol (minTrades for train, holdoutMinTrades for holdout); do not add a per-call totalTrades constraint when the protocol already sets trade floors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`symbol`	Yes
`endDate`	Yes
`startDate`	Yes
`timeframe`	Yes
`mutationId`	No
`protocolId`	Yes	Experiment protocol id returned by define_experiment_protocol for this exact candidate-evaluation check.
`caseStudyId`	No	Optional: bind this call to one of your case studies. Defaults to the bound run's case study.
`constraints`	No
`mutationLabel`	No
`researchRunId`	No	Optional: bind this call to one of your existing research runs. Defaults to this session's most recent unfinished run.
`baselineInputs`	No	Optional input overrides as a JSON-stringified object, e.g. '{"SMA Length":14}'. Keys are Pine input names; values are number, string, or boolean.
`baselineSource`	No	Pine source of the comparison baseline. Omit to use the platform benchmark baseline for this scope, which declares 1bp commission per side and 2 ticks slippage so the comparison is not a costed candidate against a zero-cost control.
`evaluationMode`	No
`trainTestSplit`	No
`candidateInputs`	No	Optional input overrides as a JSON-stringified object, e.g. '{"SMA Length":14}'. Keys are Pine input names; values are number, string, or boolean.
`candidateSource`	Yes
`objectiveMetric`	No
`mcpIdempotencyKey`	No	Unique key for this logical action. Reuse it only when retrying the same arguments. Required for hosted trust-creating actions when no idempotency header is supplied.
`mutationRationale`	No
`objectiveDirection`	No
`mutationDescription`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / baselineSource / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / baselineSource / description

Added value: +"Pine source of the comparison baseline. Omit to use the platform benchmark baseline for this scope, which declares 1bp commission per side and 2 ticks slippage so the comparison is not a costed candidate against a zero-cost control."

removedInput schema / properties / baselineSource / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
removedInput schema / properties / baselineSource / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "symbol",
-  "timeframe",
-  "startDate",
-  "endDate",
-  "baselineSource",
-  "candidateSource",
-  "protocolId"
-]New value: +[
+  "symbol",
+  "timeframe",
+  "startDate",
+  "endDate",
+  "candidateSource",
+  "protocolId"
+]

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds normative detail that the call should rely on protocol trade floors rather than per-call totalTrades, but it does not disclose return shape or any other behavioral outcome. With read-only idempotent tooling, 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the operation front-loaded and the most important usage constraint in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 21-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, this is too thin. There is no return-value or outcome guidance, no coverage of evaluationMode/training-split/objective semantics, and no mapping to sibling tools such as verify_candidate or walk_forward_candidate. The trade-floor guidance is useful but leaves most of the decision space undocumented.

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?

The description adds real meaning for the constraints parameter and protocolId interaction: declare trade floors in the protocol and do not duplicate a per-call totalTrades constraint. However, schema description coverage is only 33%, and with 21 parameters, many others (evaluationMode, trainTestSplit, objectiveMetric/objectiveDirection, baselineInputs/candidateInputs) are left uncompensated by the description.

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 identifies the action ('Compare') and target ('candidate against baseline evidence') and names the central required input (protocolId). It is specific about trade-floor handling, but it does not name any sibling tools such as verify_candidate or compare_trials, so differentiating it from those alternatives is left to the agent.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call: a candidate evaluation requiring a protocolId, and it gives a concrete do/don't instruction about protocol trade floors vs per-call totalTrades constraints. It stops short of explicit 'use X instead' guidance or exclusions, so it is not a 5.

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

All Algo Trade Analytics 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?