BotSpot: AI Trading, Backtests and Bots

Tool Call Metrics

get_tool_call_metrics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns per-tool call duration metrics for a conversation with an explicit latency boundary. Includes individual call records and aggregates, or exact Agent-vs-Node paired comparisons with transport/Agent overhead. Use this to identify slow tools and optimize your workflow.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_tool_call_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`toolName`	No	Filter results to a specific tool name.
`conversationId`	No	Conversation ID to fetch tool metrics for. Defaults to the current conversation if omitted.
`measurementScope`	No	Latency boundary. agent_round_trip includes Agent, network, Node routing, and response handling; node_server measures the Node request path; comparison pairs both clocks by exact toolCallId.	agent_round_trip

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, and the description correctly stays consistent with a read-only measurement call. It adds real behavioral content the annotations do not: the returned payload varies by scope, yielding individual call records plus aggregates in one mode and exact Agent-vs-Node paired comparisons with transport/Agent overhead in another. It does not mention volume limits or pagination, which keeps it below 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage hint, with no filler sentences. The closing 'optimize your workflow' phrase is mildly promotional but also serves as the only usage cue, so it earns its place.

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 three-parameter, all-optional, no-output-schema tool, the description does the needed work by explaining what each measurement scope returns and what the aggregates contain. The remaining gap is operational detail such as default date range, result size, or whether history beyond the current conversation is reachable.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and measurementScope already carries the full enum explanation. The description restates the scope concepts (latency boundary, Agent-vs-Node pairing, transport overhead) and adds only a slight amplification over the schema's wording, making 3 the right baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource – per-tool call duration metrics for a conversation – and pins down that the metrics come with an explicit latency boundary. It is unambiguous against the listed siblings, which sit in unrelated domains (backtests, deployments, brokers), though it never names a sibling to distinguish itself from.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'Use this to identify slow tools and optimize your workflow.' There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, but no sibling in the catalog plausibly overlaps with latency measurement, so the absence of routing guidance costs little.

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

All BotSpot: AI Trading, Backtests and Bots 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.