Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Altcoin Screener Rankings

arena_get_gem_scores

Altcoin screener ranking — which altcoins look strong right now? Today's CoinGecko Top-200 minus stablecoins and tokenized fiat, scored by a composite of 3 factor groups: Mean-Reversion (A), Tokenomics (B), Market-Structure (C). Each score carries plain (one sentence: rank with its base scored_total, composite, factor groups) and the response carries scored_total. Backtest-validated factors, not a hype list. Limit gated by tier: Free top-10, Pro top-50, Power up to 200 (the full scored set). [Free tier, daily refresh]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of coins to return (tier-capped)
from_rankNoStart from this rank (default 1)

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"
-}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "context"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exact universe, the composite scoring model, the response shape including the `plain` summary and `scored_total`, tier-based limit gating, and daily refresh behavior. This is strong transparency for a read-only screener.

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?

The description is information-dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, scoring model, output format, validation credibility, tier limits, and refresh cadence. It is front-loaded with the most important question and contains no filler.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete for calling the tool correctly. It explains what the tool returns, how scores are composed, which top coins are included, and how the `limit` parameter interacts with the user's tier. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by explaining that `limit` is tier-gated (Free top-10, Pro top-50, Power up to 200), which is not in the schema. It does not add much about `from_rank`, but the schema already documents it clearly.

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: it is an altcoin screener ranking of today's CoinGecko Top-200, scored by a composite of three named factor groups. The title and phrasing clearly separate it from sibling tools like arena_get_gem_score, which implies single-coin scoring, and arena_get_winners.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use it — 'which altcoins look strong right now?' — and sets expectations with 'Backtest-validated factors, not a hype list.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, 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 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