Backtesting Arena

Get Knowledge Object

arena_get_knowledge

Read-only

What does the platform know about this subject? Fetch a versioned, explainable Knowledge Object by type + subject (e.g. type='market_regime', subject='GLOBAL'). Returns the current published envelope: payload, explanation (factors + weights + confidence), provenance (inputs + params), ontology binding, compute version. ONE tool covers ALL knowledge types. Set include_graph=true to also walk the knowledge graph: resolved outbound edges (what this object is derived_from / references) + inbound edges (what derives from / references it), each with api_path + seo_slug so you can follow them. [Free tier; per-object access additionally gated by min_tier]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "arena_get_knowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Knowledge object type, e.g. 'market_regime'.
`as_of`	No	Specific date YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for latest.
`subject`	Yes	Subject ref, e.g. 'GLOBAL', 'BTC'.
`include_graph`	No	If true, attach the resolved edge neighbourhood (outbound + inbound) for graph traversal.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 25, 2026

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: -[
-  "type",
-  "subject",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "type",
+  "subject"
+]

First observedJul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=true available, the description carries real weight: it enumerates the returned envelope (payload, explanation, provenance, ontology binding, compute version), discloses per-object access gating by min_tier on a free tier, and explains exactly what include_graph attaches. It omits error/not-found behavior and as_of fallback semantics for out-of-range dates.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and the verb+key statement, then progressively adds return shape and the optional graph behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; the final bracketed tier note is compact rather than wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return envelope in detail, plus gating and graph expansion. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 goes beyond by giving example values for type/subject and by spelling out the semantics of include_graph (outbound = derived_from/references, inbound = what derives from it, each carrying api_path + seo_slug). That is meaningful added meaning over the field's own one-liner.

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?

Opens with a question that frames the resource, then states a specific verb+resource+key: 'Fetch a versioned, explainable Knowledge Object by type + subject' with a concrete example. The line 'ONE tool covers ALL knowledge types' pre-empts confusion with the many single-purpose siblings (arena_get_macro_regime, arena_get_fear_greed, etc.).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this one tool across all knowledge types and when to flip include_graph=true. It stops short of naming when to prefer arena_list_knowledge or arena_call_extended instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

All Backtesting Arena 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.