Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch

Get Altcoin Screener Score for One Coin

arena_get_gem_score

How does this altcoin score? Returns the Altcoin-Screener score for ONE coin, addressed by its CoinGecko id: the composite score, its group breakdown and — for Pro+ — the 9 raw factor values across groups A/B/C. Use it once a candidate is known; to rank or filter the whole screened universe use arena_get_gem_scores (plural), and for how the score behaved out-of-sample use arena_get_gem_validation. The score ranks relative attributes — pair it with arena_get_gem_validation to see how past picks actually fared, and weight it accordingly. [Free tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coingecko_idYesCoinGecko coin ID, e.g. "ethereum", "solana"

Schema Changelog

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

  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: -[
-  "coingecko_id",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "coingecko_id"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the score 'ranks relative attributes' and suggests pairing it with validation to understand actual performance. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, or free-tier restrictions beyond the '[Free tier]' tag, and it doesn't clarify what 'composite score' or 'group breakdown' mean behaviorally. It adds some value but leaves room for improvement.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core answer ('How does this altcoin score? Returns the Altcoin-Screener score for ONE coin'). Each sentence earns its place: the alternative tools are named, the out-of-sample caveat is highlighted, and the '[Free tier]' note adds practical context. Minor redundancy in phrasing ('score for ONE coin' and 'composite score') keeps it from a 5.

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 single-parameter list-like tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, how to invoke it, and how to choose it against siblings. The only gap is deeper behavioral detail (e.g., what group breakdown includes, or how the score is normalized), but the description already compensates with usage guidance and caveats.

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 description coverage is 100% — the parameter 'coingecko_id' is already documented in the schema with examples ('ethereum', 'solana'). The description reinforces that the id is a CoinGecko id but adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the Altcoin-Screener score for ONE coin, addressed by its CoinGecko id.' It explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting 'to rank or filter the whole screened universe use arena_get_gem_scores (plural)' and mentions arena_get_gem_validation for validation context. This fully distinguishes it from similar tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use it once a candidate is known; to rank or filter the whole screened universe use arena_get_gem_scores (plural), and for how the score behaved out-of-sample use arena_get_gem_validation.' This gives clear context and names alternatives with the conditions that select them.

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