Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Backtest Detail

arena_get_backtest

What exactly did that backtest do? Returns the full record of ONE backtest run by id: strategy, pair, interval, date range, parameters, filters and the aggregate metrics (CAGR, total return, win-rate, max drawdown, trade count, Buy & Hold comparison, net-of-fees figures). Only your own runs (admins may read others). Get ids from arena_list_backtests; for the individual trades add arena_get_backtest_trades; to create a new run use arena_run_backtest. [API Pro tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUUID of the backtest run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / context
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Explain 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.\"",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "id"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses access control (own runs only, admin override) and the API Pro tier requirement, both behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., 404 for nonexistent id) or response format details, but for a simple get-by-id operation the key caveats are covered.

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 front-loaded with a purpose question, then compresses a full field list, access rule, sibling pointers, and tier note into three sentences. All sentences carry useful information with no filler, though the density might be slightly high for quick scanning.

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?

For a simple tool with one param and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how to get the id, alternatives, access control, and tier requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly; even edge cases like permission and tier are addressed.

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 coverage is 100% (id is described as 'UUID of the backtest run'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing where to obtain the id (arena_list_backtests) and reinforcing that the id identifies a single run, going beyond the schema's terse field description.

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 opens with a concrete question that frames the tool's purpose, then states precisely: 'Returns the full record of ONE backtest run by id' and enumerates the exact contents (strategy, pair, interval, metrics). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming arena_get_backtest_trades and arena_run_backtest, so an agent can distinguish it without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit routing: 'Get ids from arena_list_backtests', 'for the individual trades add arena_get_backtest_trades', and 'to create a new run use arena_run_backtest'. It also clarifies access scope ('Only your own runs (admins may read others)') and tier requirement ('[API Pro tier]'), giving an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals.

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

All Backtesting Arena toolsInspect
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.

Resources