BotSpot: AI Trading, Backtests and Bots

Set strategy asset and data requirements

set_strategy_requirements

DestructiveIdempotent

Explicitly overrides the automatically analyzed assetClasses and dataRequirements metadata for this owned strategy revision only. Optionally correct aiEnabled after inspecting that exact revision; omitted classification is preserved. Use this when the user asks for an override or the saved-code analysis needs a deliberate correction. Future revisions are analyzed fresh and do not inherit this override. This updates revision database metadata only; it does not edit strategy files.

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": {
      "revisionId": "<revisionId>",
      "assetClasses": "<assetClasses>",
      "dataRequirements": "<dataRequirements>"
    },
    "name": "set_strategy_requirements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`aiEnabled`	No	Explicit classification after inspecting this exact revision: true when executable code uses AI for decisions, false for Python rules. Omit to preserve the saved classification.
`revisionId`	Yes	AiStrategyRevision.id to update
`strategyId`	No	Strategy.id for ownership resolution
`aiStrategyId`	No	AiStrategy.id for ownership resolution
`assetClasses`	Yes	Asset classes the strategy actually trades.
`dataRequirements`	Yes	Asset classes whose market data the strategy reads.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / aiEnabled

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explicit classification after inspecting this exact revision: true when executable code uses AI for decisions, false for Python rules. Omit to preserve the saved classification.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: the override applies to this revision only, future revisions are analyzed fresh and do not inherit it, and omitted classification is preserved. It does not spell out failure modes around ownership resolution (strategyId/aiStrategyId) or override reversibility, so it falls 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?

Four dense sentences with the core action and its scope front-loaded, and nothing that reads as filler. The clause 'Optionally correct aiEnabled after inspecting that exact revision' mildly duplicates the schema's own wording rather than adding new information, which keeps it just below a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a metadata-mutating tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential unknowns: what is changed (revision metadata, not files), how long it lasts (this revision only), and how omissions behave. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations that flag destructiveness, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter including aiEnabled, revisionId and the two ownership-resolution ids is already documented in structured data. The description adds only the 'omitted classification is preserved' nuance, which the schema's aiEnabled description already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Explicitly overrides the automatically analyzed assetClasses and dataRequirements metadata.' It also bounds scope precisely ('for this owned strategy revision only') and separates itself from file-editing tools with 'it does not edit strategy files.' An agent can distinguish this from set_strategy_revision or set_runtime_secret_requirements without opening any 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use this when the user asks for an override or the saved-code analysis needs a deliberate correction.' That is solid positive guidance, but it names no explicit alternative or when-not condition (e.g., when to prefer re-analysis or re-saving code instead), leaving the exclusion case to inference.

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.