Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch

Get Arena Pulse Today

arena_get_pulse

How hot is the Bitcoin market today? Daily 0-100 heat score for the Bitcoin market, aggregated from 8 components (BTC-Cycle, F&G, Altcoin-Season, Bullmarket-Ampel, Funding-Rate, Hash-Ribbons, Mayer-Multiple, MVRV-Z). Returns score, band label, color, 7d/30d delta, verdict, components breakdown, plus score_percentile ranking today’s score against its own history (e.g. 42 = 44th percentile — how hot/cold vs history, not just the raw number). [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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns in detail: score, band label, color, 7d/30d delta, verdict, components breakdown, and score_percentile with an example interpretation. It also notes the free tier, which is an operational constraint. This is a read-only operation with no destructive side effects implied. The description transparently explains output semantics without contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose (0-100 heat score). Each sentence adds value: the component list, return fields, percentile explanation, and free tier note. There is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise enough while providing necessary detail, achieving an appropriate length for the complexity it describes.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description must fully explain what the agent should expect as output. It does so comprehensively, listing all return fields and even explaining the percentile ranking. The free tier note adds operational context. There are no missing elements that would prevent a correct call or interpretation.

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 schema covers all inputs trivially (schema coverage 100%). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description focuses on output rather than input, which is appropriate since there is no input, and it does not add any input-related meaning beyond what the schema already provides (which is nothing). No further compensation is needed.

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 the tool retrieves a daily 0-100 heat score for the Bitcoin market, a composite indicator aggregating 8 named components. It distinguishes itself from sibling indicator tools (e.g., arena_get_fear_greed) by framing itself as an overall pulse summary, and lists specific output fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies a use case: to get a single composite market heat score and its percentile ranking. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools that retrieve individual components (e.g., arena_get_fear_greed, arena_get_cycle). However, the mention of '8 components' and the composite nature suggest it's a top-level summary, so an agent can infer when it's appropriate, but explicit guidance is missing.

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