Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

JW3 MCP Server

by io.github.agnostic4321-ops
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Propose trade ideas

propose_trade_ideas

APPROVAL CARD ONLY — NEVER auto-executed: propose 1–3 personalized trade opportunities (best-first) for in-app approval. Each idea is recorded as a proposed setup row (Diary → setups → Send to ticket) plus one batch trail row. Never executes, never moves funds. Needs the trade:propose scope (PAT).

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": {
      "ideas": "<ideas>",
      "rationale": "<rationale>"
    },
    "name": "propose_trade_ideas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ideasYes1–3 trade ideas, best-first. Each: pair (e.g. BTC/USDT), side buy|sell (long|short accepted as aliases), entry > 0, stop > 0 (long: stop<entry, short: stop>entry), targets 1–3x {price>0, weight (or fraction) 0..1}, thesis (required).
rationaleYesOne-sentence why-now for the batch
jev_verdictNoOptional caller-supplied JEV verdict captured alongside the batch (run analyze_market first for a fresh one)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the side effects (a proposed setup row in Diary → setups → Send to ticket plus one batch trail row), the no-execution/no-funds guarantee, and the required trade:propose scope. The only gap is that it doesn't say what the approval card response looks like or whether proposals expire.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the most important constraint (approval card only, never executed) and compact overall. The 'Diary → setups → Send to ticket' path is jargon-dense but informative; nothing is clearly wasted.

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 non-destructive proposal tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, safety, and auth scope, which is what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the returned approval card or how proposals are later approved, leaving a small gap.

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%, so the schema already documents ideas, rationale, and jev_verdict in detail. The description only restates the 1–3 best-first constraint and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'propose 1–3 personalized trade opportunities (best-first) for in-app approval' — and the 'APPROVAL CARD ONLY' framing immediately separates it from execute_trade. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says the tool never auto-executes and never moves funds, which implicitly routes execution elsewhere, and the schema notes 'run analyze_market first for a fresh one'. It does not name propose_trade or execute_trade as alternatives, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

All JW3 MCP Server 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