Backtesting Arena

Signal Context — filters vs. today, in one call

arena_get_signal_context

Read-only

Should I take this entry? Answers it for one (strategy, pair, interval) in ONE call instead of seven. Aligns what each entry filter historically did to this strategy (arena_get_strategy_filter_effect) with where that filter stands TODAY (bull-market gauge, altcoin-season signal, volatility phase, 200-week trend for BTC): filters[].blocks_this_entry says which filter would sit this entry out, with the measured worst-loss / return deltas next to it. Adds the current signal state (anticipated is always false — before candle close there is no signal), an edge_vs_benchmark block gated by the MEASURED noise floor (a gap below the floor is a measurement artifact, not a finding), a contradictions block (e.g. Pulse risk-off while the macro regime reads risk-on — reported, never resolved), and measured invalidation zones (pivot clusters, 200-week SMA; BTC only). detail: 'headline' (default) returns the statement, three key numbers and only the decisive filters; 'full' adds every variant, the raw pulse/macro/filter-effect blocks. Every source can fail independently — sources_used / sources_unavailable make the basis auditable; the answer never silently narrows. Returns a plain-language statement with its confidence and the reason for that confidence — state it, do not hedge it further; the payload carries its own scope note. Compose further with arena_get_strategy_performance_by_regime (WHEN has this worked) and arena_is_distinguishable. [Free 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": {
      "strategy": "<strategy>",
      "pair": "<pair>"
    },
    "name": "arena_get_signal_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pair`	Yes	Pair, e.g. 'BTCUSDT'. Case-insensitive.
`detail`	No	'headline' (default): statement + key numbers + decisive filters. 'full': every measured variant plus the raw source blocks.
`interval`	No	Default '1w'. Candle interval: '1d' daily, '2d'/'3d' multi-day, '1w' weekly, '1M' monthly. Multi-day candles (2d/3d) are anchored to the Unix epoch, so one of n possible alignments is used. Measured on our own corpus, the choice of alignment alone moves CAGR by 6.66 pp on average (max 12.30). Treat differences below that as not distinguishable — 1d/2d/3d behaved as one block in our tests, not a ranking.
`strategy`	Yes	Strategy key, e.g. 'rsi_sma'. See arena_list_strategies.

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: -[
-  "strategy",
-  "pair",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "strategy",
+  "pair"
+]

AddedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description never contradicts that. It adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: 'anticipated is always false', the noise-floor gate on edge_vs_benchmark, contradictions left unresolved, BTC-only invalidation zones, and independent source failure with sources_used/sources_unavailable. What it does not cover is any sizing, latency or caching behavior for a call that fans out to seven sources, so it earns a 4 on disclosure but is docked for that operational gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded correctly with the decision question, but it is a dense ~200-word run of stacked semicolon clauses that is hard to parse on first read. Parts duplicate the detail parameter already documented in the schema, and the payload field tour (filters[].blocks_this_entry, edge_vs_benchmark, contradictions) crowds the same paragraph as the usage guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by sketching the return shape: plain-language statement, confidence plus its reason, decisive-filter deltas, edge_vs_benchmark with its noise-floor gate, contradictions, invalidation zones, and provenance via sources_used/sources_unavailable. For a seven-source aggregation tool that is enough for an agent to call it and interpret the answer.

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%, with rich per-parameter docs including the interval alignment caveat, so the schema carries the burden. The description restates the detail modes ('headline' returns statement, three key numbers, decisive filters; 'full' adds every variant and raw blocks) but adds little beyond the enum description beyond naming the three key numbers.

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 the concrete question it answers ('Should I take this entry?') and states the exact scope: one (strategy, pair, interval), aggregating what would otherwise be seven sibling calls. The named sources (filter-effect, bull-market gauge, altcoin season, volatility phase, 200-week trend) make it unmistakable against arena_get_strategy_filter_effect or arena_get_pulse alone.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('ONE call instead of seven'), explicit composition paths ('Compose further with arena_get_strategy_performance_by_regime (WHEN has this worked) and arena_is_distinguishable'), and an explicit tier note ('[Free tier]'). It also says what it will not do (contradictions reported, never resolved), which routes the agent correctly.

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.