Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Ontology Term Definition

arena_get_ontology_term

What does this term mean here, exactly? Resolve a knowledge-platform term to its canonical definition (e.g. term='regime'). Returns label, definition (EN/DE), calculation, unit, source + source_ref, version, related terms. Use this to resolve the onto:@ references inside Knowledge Objects. [Free tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termYesOntology term slug, e.g. 'regime', 'liquidity', 'altcoin_season'.
versionNoSpecific version. Omit for current.

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

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It does add useful context by noting the '[Free tier]' and listing the exact fields returned, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., unknown term), response format details, or any rate limits. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth, so a 3 is fair.

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 three sentences long and logically structured: opening purpose question, return list, and usage context plus free-tier note. The opening question is stylistically engaging but not strictly necessary; still, every sentence earns its place. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns (listing fields), and when to use it (for onto: references). It lacks error handling and explicit read-only confirmation, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by providing an example term ('regime') and clarifying that version refers to the ontology reference format 'onto:<term>@<version>'. This enriches understanding of how the parameters map to the intended use case, exceeding the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('knowledge-platform term to its canonical definition'), with a concrete example ('term=\'regime\''). It enumerates what is returned (label, definition EN/DE, calculation, unit, source, version, related terms) and explicitly distinguishes its use case from all sibling tools, none of which handle ontology term resolution. The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to resolve the onto:<term>@<version> references inside Knowledge Objects.' This is clear and actionable. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context alone is sufficient given no sibling tool serves the same function, so a 4 is appropriate.

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