Skip to main content
Glama

list_bots

List trading bots ranked by performance.

Args:
    domain: Filter by domain key (e.g. "eth_usdc", "btc_usdc", "sol_usdc").
           If omitted, returns top bots across all domains.
    limit: Maximum number of bots to return (default 20, max 100).

Returns JSON array of bots with: bot_id, domain, strategy_name, sharpe,
win_rate, total_trades, return_bps, and validation_score.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
domainNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description compensates by disclosing the ranking behavior, the return as a JSON array with a specific list of fields, and the default/max behavior for limit. It does not mention authorization, pagination beyond the limit, or whether results are restricted to certain bot statuses, but coverage is solid for a read-only list operation.

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 efficiently organized: a one-sentence purpose followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

The description covers parameters, return fields, default behavior, and ranking, which is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It lacks only explicit routing against sibling tools, which is more of a usage-guideline gap than a completeness one, and no output schema is provided so the listed return fields are the only documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining the domain parameter with examples and omission behavior, and the limit parameter with default and maximum values. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema.

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 states the tool lists trading bots ranked by performance, which identifies the specific verb, resource, and ranking criterion. It is distinct enough from siblings like list_strategies, but it does not explicitly name overlapping siblings like get_marketplace_bots or get_open_source_leaderboard to differentiate them.

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 parameter usage (domain filter, limit) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are mentioned, and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice.

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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but browse_fund_marketplace and get_marketplace_bots are easy to confuse since both surface marketplace bots with performance metrics. The detailed descriptions clarify their different intents, though the naming does not strongly reinforce the distinction.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set almost uniformly uses snake_case verb_noun names like create_fund, list_funds, and update_fund_weights. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as get_marketplace_bots returning a list instead of a single item and browse_fund_marketplace using a different pattern from the other marketplace tools.

Tool Count3/5

At 26 tools, the server is on the heavy side and above the typical well-scoped range. The broad domain of funds, strategies, marketplaces, and market data helps justify the count, but several overlapping marketplace/list tools inflate the surface and could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core fund lifecycle, roster management, strategy validation/deployment, marketplace browsing, and market data reads quite thoroughly. Minor gaps remain, such as no update/delete operations for strategies and no direct tool for publishing a bot to the marketplace, but these are workable within the existing workflow.