MangroveAI

list_sweep_markets

Read-onlyIdempotent

What history a sweep could run over, as the choices to offer and how many windows each one would add. Oracle keeps MANY separate windows per asset -- different date spans of the same market, each labelled with the character of the market inside it -- and a sweep runs over every one that matches, which is what stops a result that only held in one period from looking general. CALL THIS BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, and again after each answer: the counts are conditioned on what has been chosen already, so they say what picking an option would ADD. Offer only what comes back. An option the catalog cannot cover is not returned at all, and an asset Oracle holds no data for cannot be swept however well known it is. Windows with missing bars are left out unless asked for.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_sweep_markets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`assets`	No	Asset symbols, e.g. ["BTC", "ETH"].
`regimes`	No	Market conditions to keep: current, bear, neutral, bull. current means data within the last 30 days, which is recency and not direction. Omitted, every condition.
`windows`	No	Specific window files to include whatever else is chosen.
`candle_sizes`	No	Candle sizes, e.g. ["1h"]. Omitted, every size Oracle holds for those assets, which multiplies the windows.
`include_gapped`	No	Include windows missing bars. Off by default, because a metric over a half-covered window is not comparable to one over a whole window.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description does not add safety or side-effect details. It does add useful domain behavior: incremental/conditional counts, options silently omitted when uncovered, assets without Oracle data being unsweepable, and gapped windows excluded by default. That is real added context, but it is mixed with explanation that repeats schema defaults rather than going deeper on response behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The usage guidance is front-loaded and useful, but the description is padded with narrative asides ('different date spans of the same market, each labelled with the character of the market inside it', a multi-clause justification about results that only held in one period) that delay the key filtering rules.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so conceptually: a set of options with counts of windows each would add, omitting anything unsupported. It covers filtering behavior (assets, regimes, candle sizes, gapped windows) sufficiently for the five optional parameters, though exact return structure is left implicit.

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 schema already documents every parameter including regimes, candle_sizes, and gapped windows. The description reinforces the conditional nature of the counts and the default exclusion of gapped windows, but adds no new syntax or format information beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific resource and output shape: the market/window choices a sweep could run over, with per-option window counts. It is clearly distinguishable from list_sweeps or create_sweep, but the leading sentence is convoluted ('What history a sweep could run over, as the choices to offer...') and never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Explicitly says to call it first and again after each answer, and explains why: counts are conditioned on prior selections and represent what an option would ADD. It also gives a consumption rule ('Offer only what comes back') and states that uncoverable options are omitted entirely.

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

All MangroveAI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.