Skip to main content
Glama

luxalgo-mcp-server

Search prop firms

propfirms_search

Search LuxAlgo's prop-firm catalog (proprietary trading firms offering funded accounts). Combine firm filters (platforms, markets, payment/payout methods, country availability, Trustpilot, year founded) with nested challenge filters (account size, price, steps, profit split, trading rules) and offer filters — a firm matches when at least one of its challenges/offers matches all of them. Omit every filter to list all firms. Use include to nest the matching challenges, live offers, and the written overview; for one firm's full dossier prefer propfirms_get. Uncaptured (null) fields are omitted from results; nested challenges reference offers via offerIds into the firm-level offers list. This tool returns directory data (what exists and on what terms), not outcomes: for simulated pass odds on a challenge found here, use propfirms_pass_rates or propfirms_simulate with its firm and challenge ids.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort key (default name)
textNoCase-insensitive search over firm name and slug, e.g. 'ftmo'
stepsNoExact evaluation step count (1 = instant/funded, 2 = two-step, …)
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."
includeNoExtra payloads to nest on each firm (only children matching the filters are returned)
offerIdNoPublic offer ids
currencyNoAccount currencies, e.g. ['usd', 'eur']
intervalNoChallenge fee intervals, e.g. 'one-time', 'monthly'
priceMaxNoMaximum challenge fee (inclusive)
priceMinNoMinimum challenge fee (inclusive)
stepsMaxNoMaximum step count (ignored when steps is set)
stepsMinNoMinimum step count (ignored when steps is set)
directionNoSort direction; each sort key has a sensible default
offerTextNoCase-insensitive search over promo code and offer descriptions
pageIndexNo0-based page index (default 0)
promoCodeNoCase-insensitive substring of the promo code
isFeaturedNoOnly featured offers when true
maxLossMaxNoUpper bound on the overall-loss limit magnitude
propfirmIdNoPublic firm slugs, e.g. ['ftmo']
autoTradingNoWhether automated trading (EAs/bots) is allowed
availableInNoCountry names the firm must NOT restrict, e.g. ['United States']
challengeIdNoPublic challenge ids
copyTradingNoWhether copy trading is allowed
countryIso2NoISO-2 headquarters countries, e.g. ['GB', 'US']
discountMaxNoMaximum discount value
discountMinNoMinimum discount value
maxLossModeNoDrawdown modes; challenges without a captured mode never match
newsTradingNoWhether news trading is allowed
dailyLossMaxNoUpper bound on the daily-loss limit magnitude (smaller = stricter)
pageQuantityNoPage size (default 50, max 100)
productTypesNoProduct types the firm must offer at least one of, e.g. 'CFD', 'Futures'
challengeNameNoCase-insensitive substring of the challenge name
payoutMethodsNoPayout methods the firm must offer at least one of, e.g. 'Bank Transfer', 'Crypto'
accountSizeMaxNoMaximum account size (inclusive)
accountSizeMinNoMinimum account size (inclusive)
hasActiveOfferNoWhen true, the firm must currently have a live (active, unexpired) offer
includeExpiredNoWhen true, ended offers are not hidden (default false)
maxLeverageMinNoMinimum max leverage
maxYearFoundedNoInclusive maximum year founded
minYearFoundedNoInclusive minimum year founded
paymentMethodsNoPayment methods the firm must accept at least one of, e.g. 'Crypto', 'PayPal'
profitSplitMinNoMinimum trader profit-split percent
weekendHoldingNoWhether holding over the weekend is allowed
includeInactiveNoWhen true, inactive offers are not hidden (default false)
isFeeRefundableNoWhether the challenge fee is refundable
overnightHoldingNoWhether holding overnight is allowed
stoplossRequiredNoWhether a stop loss is required
tradingPlatformsNoPlatforms the firm must offer at least one of, e.g. 'MT5', 'cTrader', 'TradingView'
discountIsPercentNotrue for percent discounts, false for absolute amounts
minTradingDaysMaxNoMaximum required minimum trading days (finds less-strict challenges)
tradedMarketTypesNoMarkets the firm must offer at least one of, e.g. 'forex', 'indices', 'commodities'
isPreferredPartnerNoOnly LuxAlgo preferred-partner firms when true
minTrustPilotCountNoMinimum Trustpilot review count
minTrustPilotScoreNoMinimum Trustpilot score

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the matching rule (a firm matches when at least one challenge/offer matches all filters), null-field omission, include/nesting behavior with offerIds references, and explicitly states the tool returns directory data rather than simulated outcomes. This goes well beyond a bare 'search' statement.

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 long but dense, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, filter semantics, include behavior, sibling routing, and the directory-vs-outcome caveat. The action and resource are front-loaded before implementation details, which is appropriate for this level of complexity.

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?

For a 54-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is quite complete: it covers matching semantics, include behavior, null-field omission, expected response kind, and routes to companion tools for dossiers and simulations. It could be stronger by describing the exact response envelope or disambiguating against propfirms_search_challenges and propfirms_search_offers, but those 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds valuable meta-semantics: how firm, challenge, and offer filters combine, the invariant that at least one challenge/offer must match all filters, and the rule that omitting every filter lists all firms. It also explains include payloads and null handling, helping the agent reason across the 54 parameters without repeating each one.

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 names the exact verb ('Search') and resource ('LuxAlgo's prop-firm catalog') and clarifies the subject as proprietary trading firms offering funded accounts. It also distinguishes the tool from propfirms_get ('full dossier'), propfirms_pass_rates, and propfirms_simulate, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Omit every filter to list all firms') and names alternatives for related intents: 'for one firm's full dossier prefer propfirms_get' and 'for simulated pass odds... use propfirms_pass_rates or propfirms_simulate'. It does not explicitly route to the overlapping propfirms_search_challenges and propfirms_search_offers siblings, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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

A4.1/5.0
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.