Skip to main content
Glama

luxalgo-mcp-server

by io.github.LuxAlgo

Search prop-firm offers

propfirms_search_offers

Search promotional offers (discounts and promo codes) across prop firms — defaults to live (active, unexpired) offers only. propfirmId narrows to one firm; challengeId resolves the offers that apply to a challenge (firm-wide offers included). Every offer carries the promo code, discount, end date, and affiliate link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort key (default: featured first, then discount)
textNoCase-insensitive search over promo code, descriptions, and firm name/slug
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."
offerIdNoPublic offer ids
isActiveNoDefaults to live offers only; pass false to look at inactive offers
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
propfirmIdNoPublic firm slugs, e.g. ['ftmo']
challengeIdNoPublic challenge ids; an offer matches when it applies to at least one (all-challenges offers match that firm's challenges)
discountMaxNoMaximum discount value
discountMinNoMinimum discount value
pageQuantityNoPage size (default 50, max 100)
includeExpiredNoWhen true, ended offers are not hidden (default false)
includeInactiveNoWhen true, inactive offers are not hidden (default false)
discountIsPercentNotrue for percent discounts, false for absolute amounts

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it delivers: live-only default, challenge matching including firm-wide offers, and the fields every offer carries. It does not cover pagination or sorting behavior, but those are documented in the schema and are secondary for tool selection.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose and default, key filters, and result content. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and states what each returned offer contains. It leans on the exhaustive schema for the remaining filters, which is acceptable; a brief mention of pagination would have made it fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces propfirmId and challengeId semantics but adds little beyond the schema; 'firm-wide offers included' is already effectively captured by the challengeId schema text.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search promotional offers (discounts and promo codes) across prop firms.' It then scopes the resource further with propfirmId and challengeId, which separates it from siblings like propfirms_search and propfirms_search_challenges without needing to open 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 clearly states the default (live offers only) and gives two concrete routing filters: propfirmId for a single firm and challengeId for offers applicable to a challenge. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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