Skip to main content
Glama

export_backtest

Export a multi-strategy comparison as an Excel workbook.

    Quota-counted; needs a key whose plan includes full-metrics export
    (a 403 means the configured key's plan does not — do not retry).
    Returns the workbook base64-encoded — decode and write it to a
    ``.xlsx`` file.

    Args:
        data_source: Shared data source (same shape as run_backtest).
        strategies: Same shape as compare_backtests' ``strategies``.
        include_benchmark: Add a buy-and-hold benchmark to the export.

    Returns:
        {"filename", "content_type", "size_bytes", "content_base64"}. A
        400/422 rejection returns {"accepted": false, "error": ...};
        capacity/timeout/permission failures raise a tool error. If the
        encoded workbook would exceed the output size limit, raises a
        tool error — narrow the request (shorter date range, fewer
        strategies, coarser frequency) and retry.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
strategiesYes
data_sourceYes
include_benchmarkNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses all behavioral traits: quota-counted, plan restriction, base64 encoding, error types (403, 400/422, tool errors), and size limit with resolution. This fully informs the agent of side effects and failure modes.

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 well-structured with a summary, quota/plan note, args list, and returns section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers usage context, error handling, output format, and size limit workaround. It references sibling tools for parameter shapes, which is acceptable given their existence. Missing details about the exact structure of 'data_source' and 'strategies' are minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for all three parameters by explaining their roles and referencing sibling tool shapes (e.g., 'same shape as run_backtest'). It does not detail nested object structures, but the cross-references are helpful for agents familiar with those tools.

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 action 'Export a multi-strategy comparison as an Excel workbook', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from similar tools like 'compare_backtests' (comparison object) and 'run_backtest' (single run) by specifying the output format and multi-strategy scope.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on quota counting, plan requirements, and 403 handling ('do not retry'). It also advises narrowing the request on size errors. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like 'compare_backtests' or state when to choose this tool over returning data.

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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct operation or resource: backtesting, comparison, macro data, reference catalogs, etc. Even similar tools like run_backtest and compare_backtests are clearly differentiated by purpose and inputs.

Naming Consistency4/5

Overall consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with a few exceptions like engine_info (noun_noun) and export_backtest (verb_noun but less common verb). The pattern is predictable and aids agent selection.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is slightly above the ideal range but justified by the breadth of the platform (backtesting, data retrieval, reference, export). Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

Covers the full backtesting lifecycle: strategy validation, data sourcing, backtesting, comparison, export, and reference lookups. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit strategy persistence), but the core workflow is complete.

Resources