trading-signals-mcp

Opening-Range-Breakout Backtest

backtest_opening_range_breakout

Read-only

Opening-range-breakout backtest on your intraday bars: trades, win rate, avg R, total R, profit factor, max drawdown, exits, long/short split and recent trades. Works with no key (small daily allowance) or with a Trading Signals Toolkit API key (free 100 calls/month, Starter, Pro). Pay-per-call equivalent: $0.02 USDC over x402. Informational only, not investment advice.

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": {
      "bars": "<bars>"
    },
    "name": "backtest_opening_range_breakout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rr`	No	Target in R multiples (default 2)
`tz`	No	IANA timezone for sessions (default America/New_York)
`bars`	Yes	OHLCV bars, oldest first: {t (ISO-8601 or epoch s/ms), o, h, l, c, v} or [t,o,h,l,c,v]. Max 5000.
`stop`	No
`minutes`	No	Opening range minutes (default 15)
`direction`	No
`sessionEnd`	No
`costPerTrade`	No	Cost in points per trade
`sessionStart`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the full set of reported metrics, that it works anonymously under a small daily allowance or with an API key, and the paid x402 path — useful for an agent deciding whether to call it. It does not add anything on defaults or data-quality requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose and the returned metrics, with pricing and the disclaimer trailing behind. The metric enumeration is long but informative; the pricing tiers sentence is the least relevant to tool selection.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully enumerates the return fields, which partly fills that gap. However, a 9-parameter strategy backtest with an undocumented half of its schema leaves real gaps — notably the stop enum semantics, session-window format, and default behavior when rr/minutes are omitted.

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 description coverage is only 56% across 9 parameters, so the schema carries incomplete meaning. The description compensates for none of it — it never mentions rr, stop, minutes, tz, direction, sessionStart/sessionEnd, or costPerTrade, leaving the two enums and the session-window strings undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and strategy ('Opening-range-breakout backtest') applied to a specific resource ('your intraday bars'), and enumerates the outputs produced (trades, win rate, avg R, max drawdown, etc.). The 'backtest' verb distinguishes it from the sibling 'opening_range', but the description never names that sibling or explains the difference, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

No statement of when to run this backtest versus siblings such as opening_range or pre_trade_check, and no mention of prerequisites beyond 'intraday bars'. The access/pricing sentence (no key vs API key vs x402) tells an agent about billing, not about when this tool is the right choice.

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

All trading-signals-mcp 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.