Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch

Get BTC Cost-Basis Spread (sign conflict)

arena_get_cost_basis_spread

Is the market in profit or at a loss? It depends on which cost basis you ask. Puts the three BTC cost-basis measures side by side — Realized Price (unweighted), True Market Mean (cointime-weighted) and Vaulted Price (dormant holdings only) — with spot measured against each, and flags the case that matters: sign_conflict is true when spot sits BETWEEN them, i.e. one measure says profit and another says loss at the same moment. That state is invisible to anyone who queries realized price alone. Also returns the active/vaulted supply split. ⚠️ Supply figures are cointime-weighted, NOT coin balances: active + vaulted legitimately exceeds circulating supply, so total_counted is not a supply number (the payload states this). All values come from one snapshot; source Cointime Economics (ARK×Glassnode) via BRK. Descriptive — no statement about future price direction. Related: arena_get_knowledge(type="onchain_cost_basis_ladder") for the full ladder incl. STH/Active rungs and the cointime-MVRV percentile. [Free tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
-}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "context"
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it thoroughly: it discloses the cointime-weighted nature of supply figures, the non-balance interpretation of total_counted, single-snapshot consistency, the data source, and the inherent lack of forward-looking statements. These are exactly the nuances an agent must know to avoid misinterpreting outputs.

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?

Long but every sentence earns its place: the core concept (sign conflict) is front-loaded, followed by the critical supply-figure caveat, then the source and sibling routing. No fluff, and the structure moves from what it is to what to watch out for to where to go next.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is exceptionally complete. It explains the output fields (sign_conflict, total_counted, supply split), warns about measurement units, names the source, and points to the related tool. An agent can call it correctly and interpret results correctly with zero additional context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no param-specific details (none exist), but it explains the meaning of the key output field (sign_conflict) which is the closest thing to parameter-like semantics here.

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?

States a precise verb ('puts ... side by side') and the exact resource (three BTC cost-basis measures with spot), and distinguishes itself from the related ladder tool by naming it. The sign-conflict flag is clearly defined, making it distinct from any single cost-basis tool.

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 names the alternative (arena_get_knowledge with type='onchain_cost_basis_ladder') and provides the selection rationale (full ladder, STH/Active rungs, MVRV percentile). Also warns that the sign-conflict state is invisible when querying realized price alone, and clarifies that it makes no price-direction claims, covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools cover overlapping market indicators (e.g., cycle state, pulse, bullmarket ampel, volatility phases) and several share similar get_*_history patterns, which could cause an agent to select the wrong one. However, each tool has detailed descriptions with explicit references to related tools to reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names generally follow a verb_noun pattern (arena_get_*, arena_list_*, arena_run_*, arena_subscribe_*), but there are inconsistencies such as 'validate_strategy' (no arena_ prefix), 'arena_status' (not a clear verb_noun), and variations like 'arena_run_grid_backtest' vs 'arena_run_backtest'.

Tool Count2/5

With 84 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a typical MCP server, likely causing navigation and selection overhead. While the domain (crypto backtesting and analytics) is broad, 84 tools exceed reasonable coherence and impose a high cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of analytics (market indicators, backtesting, validation, alerts, subscriptions, reports) with few obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist like lack of direct portfolio management or strategy editing, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources