FILTRIX.net

get_trade_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Bars around one event of a saved run: daily bars up to the date ({t, o, h, l, c, v}, daily_lookback max 250) and that day's minute bars ({ts in ns since epoch UTC, o, h, l, c, v}). The (symbol, date) must be one of the run's events (see get_run rows or a simulation's trades). Prices are not split-adjusted.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "get_trade_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Event date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`run_id`	Yes	Id of one of the caller's saved runs (from list_runs or save_run).
`symbol`	Yes	Ticker of the event, e.g. AAPL.
`daily_lookback`	No	Daily bars to return up to the date, max 250.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: prices are not split-adjusted, the daily lookback is capped at 250, and minute-bar timestamps are nanoseconds since epoch UTC. What remains unstated is pagination/response size behavior for the minute series.

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 returned data and heavily information-dense; every clause carries content (units, caps, preconditions, adjustment caveat). The nested parentheses make it somewhat cramped to parse, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers the three things an agent needs to call it correctly: the returned payload shape, the validity constraint on (run_id, symbol, date), and the data-fidelity caveat about split adjustment. With an output schema present, the return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the 250-bar cap rather than extending it. Its format details ({t,o,h,l,c,v}, ns-epoch timestamps) describe outputs rather than parameter meaning, so with the schema doing the heavy lifting the baseline of 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?

Opens with a precise statement of the returned resource: daily bars plus the event day's minute bars for one event of a saved run. It scopes the tool narrowly ('one event of a saved run') and implicitly separates it from the plain daily-bar sibling by binding results to run events, so an agent can tell what it will and won't return.

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 hard precondition ('The (symbol, date) must be one of the run's events') and points to where valid inputs come from (get_run rows or a simulation's trades). It lacks an explicit negative rule such as 'use get_daily_bars for arbitrary symbols/dates outside a run', so the alternative routing 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 FILTRIX.net 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.

Resources

Need Help?