Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

quant-backtest-escrow-auditor

by io.github.adamgraymon
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

audit_quant_backtest_escrow

[EN] Vertical 2 (Quant Backtests): Audit trading strategy backtests (NQ futures, crypto, forex) for Look-Ahead Bias, fake PnL accounting, Profit Factor, Max Drawdown & Sharpe Ratio. | [ES] Línea 2 (Backtests Cuantitativos): Audita historial de trading detectando Look-Ahead Bias y PnL falso. | [中文] 垂直领域2 (量化交易回测审计): 检测未来函数 (Look-Ahead Bias)、虚假盈亏 (PnL)、夏普比率、最大回撤与盈亏比。

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": {
      "trades": "<trades>"
    },
    "name": "audit_quant_backtest_escrow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tradesYesArray of trades with entryTime/entryTimestampMs, exitTime/exitTimestampMs, side, entryPrice, exitPrice, size, pnlUsd
minTradesNo
maxDrawdownPctNo
minProfitFactorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / trades / description
      Previous value: -"Lista de trades con entryTime, exitTime, side, entryPrice, exitPrice, size, pnlUsd"New value: +"Array of trades with entryTime/entryTimestampMs, exitTime/exitTimestampMs, side, entryPrice, exitPrice, size, pnlUsd"
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not say whether the call is read-only, whether thresholds cause rejection or just flagging, or what the caller receives. Naming the checks performed is useful context but falls well short of the behavior a caller needs.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The text is three near-identical translations that add no information beyond the English version, tripling length without adding meaning. The core statement is front-loaded, but most of the token budget is duplication rather than earned detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return shape and threshold behavior but does not. It is adequate to establish the auditing domain, yet incomplete for a four-parameter analysis tool with undocumented threshold semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25%: the required trades array is documented, but minTrades, maxDrawdownPct and minProfitFactor appear nowhere in the description. The description does not compensate for that gap, so the three threshold parameters remain semantically opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: auditing trading-strategy backtests (NQ futures, crypto, forex) for look-ahead bias, fake PnL accounting, profit factor, max drawdown and Sharpe ratio. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from the other audit_*_escrow siblings, though the 'Vertical 2' framing is unexplained.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to prefer for a non-backtest audit. The agent must infer selection purely from the resource type in the first sentence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All quant-backtest-escrow-auditor 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