Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch

Get Winners List (Top 100 CAGR)

arena_get_winners

What are the strongest backtest results on the platform? Public leaderboard: the highest-CAGR backtest results across all users, with anonymized usernames, pair, strategy, interval and period. Answers "what has scored best on this platform so far". A top-of-leaderboard entry is the winner of a large search — pair it with arena_get_robustness_field or validate_strategy to see how much of the edge survives outside its winning cell. For the user's own runs use arena_list_backtests. [Free tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many entries to return, max 100 (default 100).
strategyNoRestrict the leaderboard to one strategy key, e.g. 'rsi_sma'. Omit for all strategies.
asset_classNoAsset class filter. Default 'crypto' (D14-separated leaderboard).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"How many entries to return, max 100 (default 100)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / strategy / description
      Added value: +"Restrict the leaderboard to one strategy key, e.g. 'rsi_sma'. Omit for all strategies."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / asset_class
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Asset class filter. Default 'crypto' (D14-separated leaderboard).",
+  "enum": [
+    "crypto",
+    "tokenized_rwa"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / asset_type
      Removed value: -{
-  "enum": [
-    "crypto"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / asset_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "crypto",
-  "stock",
-  "etf",
-  "commodities",
-  "forex"
-]New value: +[
+  "crypto"
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that the data is public, anonymized, cross-user, and free-tier, which are important behavioral traits. It does not explicitly mention read-only status or rate limits, but the public leaderboard framing strongly implies a safe read operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing either purpose, usage context, or an alternative. The free-tier tag and sibling routing are integrated without unnecessary padding.

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-only list with three optional parameters, the description gives enough context: what the leaderboard contains, key returned fields, and how to use it alongside other tools. It does not describe the exact response envelope or ordering, but the absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the field list in the prose.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema for limit, strategy, or asset_class, but it does not need to because the schema already documents each parameter clearly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the public leaderboard of highest-CAGR backtest results across all users. It clearly enumerates the returned scope (pair, strategy, interval, period, anonymized usernames) and explicitly differentiates itself from arena_list_backtests and the validation tools.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: for the user's own runs use arena_list_backtests, and pair leaderboard entries with arena_get_robustness_field or validate_strategy for robustness checks. This is strong routing guidance with named sibling tools.

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