Shibui Finance

Backtesting Analysis Workflow

load_backtesting_workflow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Backtesting and simulation guardrails: survivorship, drawdown, Sharpe, day-of-week. REQUIRES get_database_schema then get_query_patterns to be called first (in that order). Call BEFORE writing SQL when the user asks to backtest, simulate, validate a strategy, test "what happens after X", compare forward returns, measure win rates or hit rates, compute Sharpe, drawdown, profit factor, rotation strategies, basket returns, or any hypothetical return over past data. Contains hard rules for survivorship bias, outlier handling, sampling design, day-of-week filters, and risk-adjusted metrics (Sharpe, Sortino, drawdown). Can be combined with other workflow tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description reveals internal guardrails (survivorship bias, outlier handling, sampling design, day-of-week filters, risk-adjusted metrics) and the ordering prerequisite, which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with a summary, then a requirement, then a list of triggering user requests. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence carries meaningful information without fluff.

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?

Given that the tool has no input parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers purpose, triggers, prerequisites, and internal rules. It also notes combinability with other workflow tools, leaving no significant 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. With no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 that this tool loads a backtesting workflow with guardrails, and enumerates specific use cases (backtest, simulate, validate strategy, compute Sharpe/drawdown, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling workflow tools. The verb 'load' and resource 'backtesting workflow' are unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call before writing SQL for a long list of backtesting/simulation requests. It also states the prerequisite ordering (get_database_schema then get_query_patterns). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full marks.

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

All Shibui Finance 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct domains (backtesting, comparison, earnings, filings, fundamentals, insider, screening, technical), and descriptions provide specific trigger conditions. However, stock_data_query and export_to_excel are very similar (same query, different output), and some workflow boundaries overlap (e.g., earnings vs. fundamental both mention revenue trends; filing vs. insider both involve SEC documents).

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: get_database_schema and get_query_patterns follow verb_noun, the eight load_*_workflow tools follow verb_noun (consistent among themselves), but stock_data_query is a noun phrase with no verb, and export_to_excel includes a preposition. The mixed conventions are still readable but not uniform.

Tool Count4/5

At 12 tools, the count is within the expected 3-15 range and appropriate for the broad scope of comprehensive stock analysis. However, eight of the tools are 'load_*_workflow' entries that are structurally identical, which makes the set feel slightly heavier than necessary, though each covers a distinct analytical domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the domain: schema discovery, query guidance, raw query execution, export in a branded format, and eight specialized workflows covering backtesting, comparisons, earnings, filings, fundamentals, insider trading, screening, and technical analysis. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated purpose of US stock/financial data analysis.

Resources

Need Help?