Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Strategy Insights Matrix or Detail

arena_get_strategy_insights

Which strategy and interval combinations actually performed? Aggregated backtest performance per (strategy × interval) cell. If strategy AND interval provided, returns detail with per-asset breakdown + param variants. Otherwise returns the matrix. Free tier is limited to the same strategies that are free in the backtester itself (rsi_sma, golden_cross, rsi_ob_os, bnh_fixed, dca_reference); the response then carries plan_capped: true plus plan_cap_note, so a short matrix is never mistaken for a thin database. Detail mode on a Pro-only strategy returns 403 rather than a silently empty answer. API Pro and Power receive every cell. [Free: 5 strategies / Pro+: full]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intervalNoDetail mode: interval. 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.
min_runsNoMatrix mode: minimum runs per cell. Default 5.
strategyNoDetail mode: strategy key (used together with `interval`).
asset_typeNoRestrict to one asset class.
assets_modeNo'top10' restricts to top-10 pairs by run-count.
ref_strategyNoBenchmark reference. Default 'bh'.

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / interval / description
      Previous value: -"Detail mode: interval."New value: +"Detail mode: interval. 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."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / interval / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "1d",
-  "1w",
-  "1M"
-]New value: +[
+  "1d",
+  "2d",
+  "3d",
+  "1w",
+  "1M"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / asset_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "crypto"
-]New value: +[
+  "crypto",
+  "tokenized_equity",
+  "tokenized_etf",
+  "commodities"
+]
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / asset_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "crypto",
-  "stock",
-  "etf",
-  "commodities",
-  "forex"
-]New value: +[
+  "crypto"
+]
  6. 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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses mode switching, the `plan_capped: true` flag plus `plan_cap_note` to prevent misreading a short matrix, the 403-on-Pro-only-detail behavior, and the interval-alignment caveat with quantified CAGR impact. These details go well beyond a generic 'returns data' statement.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, mode conditions, free-tier cap, error behavior, and interval alignment caveat. It front-loads the primary purpose and then layers constraints in a logical order. The bracketed plan summary at the end is a compact reinforcement rather than redundant repetition.

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?

For a moderately complex tool with two modes, six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the essential context needed to call it correctly. It explains what the response looks like in both modes, what failures look like, how plan limitations affect data, and a statistical caveat about interval alignment. Nothing critical for correct invocation is left unexplained.

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 baseline is 3, but the top-level description adds meaningful interaction semantics beyond the individual parameter docs. It clarifies that `strategy` and `interval` jointly trigger detail mode, what detail mode contains, and how free-tier limits affect the results. This added context justifies a score above baseline, though it does not need to explain every parameter since the schema already does.

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 opens with the core question: 'Which strategy and interval combinations actually performed?', then precisely defines the resource as aggregated backtest performance per (strategy × interval) cell. It clearly distinguishes the two output modes: detail when both `strategy` and `interval` are provided, otherwise the matrix. This is specific enough to separate it from the many sibling `get_*` tools.

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 conditions for when to get the matrix versus the detail view, including the required combination of `strategy` and `interval`. It also warns about free-tier strategy restrictions and the 403 behavior for Pro-only strategies. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explain when to prefer this over related tools like arena_get_strategy_performance, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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