Skip to main content
Glama

luxalgo-mcp-server

by io.github.LuxAlgo

Reference pass rates per archetype

propfirms_pass_rates

Reference challenge pass rates computed live from the directory's encoded rules with the same engine, seed (42), path count (10,000) and reference archetypes luxalgo.com/prop-firms uses — per challenge and per archetype (developing 45% win rate / consistent 48% / proven edge 52%, all risking conservatively). Returns per-attempt pass probability with 95% CI, P(funded), expected attempts and total cost, EV, payout probability, funded-blowup probability, each cell's assumption flag ids, and the ruleset's provenance (structured directory columns vs fields inferred from listing text — always relay inferred fields). Deterministic per ruleset and cached — cheap to call. These are REFERENCE odds for orientation and comparison, not the user's personal odds: for their own statistics use propfirms_simulate (summary stats) or propfirms_simulate_trades (their real trade series). Not a ranking; a firm's page is authoritative for current rules (check lastVerified). Expected costs use the directory's listed challenge prices; full firm profiles and live offers are directory data (propfirms_get, propfirms_search_offers).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
firmIdYesDirectory firm id (propfirmId, e.g. 'ftmo') or firm name — from propfirms_list_simulatable.
contextYesExplain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
challengeIdNoOne challenge id. Omit to compute every simulatable challenge the firm has.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses deterministic computation, caching, low cost, live derivation from directory rules, provenance handling, the need to relay inferred fields, and a detailed list of returned metrics. No contradictions with structured data exist.

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 a long single paragraph, but nearly every sentence adds essential value: methodology, caveats, return contents, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parentheticals efficiently, though bullet points would improve scannability.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description enumerates the full set of returned metrics (pass probability, 95% CI, P(funded), expected attempts/cost, EV, payout/blowup probabilities, assumption flag ids, provenance) and provides interpretation safeguards. It also directs to authoritative sources for current rules and offers, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mainly restates the firmId source and challengeId omission behavior already present in the schema; it adds context about output interpretation rather than new parameter-level semantics.

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's specific function: computing reference challenge pass rates per archetype from the directory's encoded rules, with exact methodology (same engine, seed 42, path count 10,000). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it is not the user's personal odds and not a ranking, directing to simulate tools for personal statistics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: as reference odds for orientation and comparison, not for the user's own statistics. It names alternatives (propfirms_simulate, propfirms_simulate_trades, propfirms_get, propfirms_search_offers) and clarifies that a firm's page is authoritative and lastVerified should be checked, providing strong routing guidance.

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

All luxalgo-mcp-server toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The domain prefixes (edge_, library_, propfirms_, trackers_) cleanly separate four distinct areas, and within most clusters each tool has a specific job (search vs get vs list vs simulate). The propfirms cluster is the only strain: propfirms_simulate, propfirms_simulate_trades, propfirms_pass_rates, propfirms_compare, and propfirms_validate_strategy all overlap in the broad sense of 'running simulations,' though the descriptions do differentiate them by input type and scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Each domain follows its own consistent pattern: library_get_*/library_list_*, propfirms_* with an action verb, edge_* and trackers_* as noun-style resources. The convention is recognizable and predictable per domain, with only minor deviations like propfirms_challenge_rules and propfirms_pass_rates being noun-first rather than verb-first.

Tool Count3/5

At 28 tools the server is heavy, but the count is justified by four large, distinct product surfaces (Library, Edge Stats, prop-firm simulation, and market trackers). Each individual cluster is reasonably scoped; the propfirms cluster alone accounts for 12 tools, which pushes the total into the 'too many' range even though the breadth is real.

Completeness5/5

Each domain feels complete: edge stats has catalog, symbol discovery, and report retrieval; the Library has search, browse, get, and source-code access; propfirms has search, get, rule encoding, simulation, trade-series simulation, comparison, optimization, and validation; trackers has dataset discovery, query, latest-publish, and cross-dataset ticker dossiers. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps within the read-only/analysis scope the server targets.

Resources