Skip to main content
Glama

Regime

by xyz.regimetoken
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Coin comparison

coin_comparison
Read-onlyIdempotent

Two or three coins side by side, every check at once: for each, how often a buy fell 30% or more before the window was out and where the middle one ended, how often a leveraged month ended with nothing, whether spreading the entry won, how often a stop-loss sold a buy that ended in profit, and how much it moves with bitcoin. Nothing is ranked and no coin is called better. Spot and perpetual tapes, fees charged.

Use when two or three coins are being compared or chosen between. For one coin or one question the specific check gives more detail: drawdown_check, leverage_survival, averaging_in_check, stop_loss_check, diversification_check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysYes90, 365 (default) or 730.
coinsYesTwo or three tickers, comma-separated: BTC,ETH,SOL. Kept in the order sent.
leverageYesFor the leverage row. Default 25.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNofalse when we do not hold that data. Never a zero standing in for an answer.
rowsNoPer coin: the drawdown, leverage, averaging-in and stop-loss answers, and its correlation with bitcoin (null for bitcoin itself).
errorNono_data when ok is false.
modelNoThe method, stated.
reasonNoWhy, in one sentence, and what we do have instead.
sourceNoThe public files these numbers come from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / days / default
      Added value: +365
    • addedInput schema / properties / days / enum
      Added value: +[
+  90,
+  365,
+  730
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / leverage / default
      Added value: +25
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are unranked and no coin is declared better, both spot and perpetual tapes are used, and fees are charged. Those are exactly the traits an agent needs to interpret the output and set user expectations.

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 core scope ('Two or three coins side by side, every check at once') before the check enumeration, and the usage paragraph follows cleanly. The check list is long but each item is load-bearing information about output content, so little is wasted; slightly dense for a single sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value formatting is handled structurally, and the description still covers scope, the checks performed, the non-ranking behavior, fee and tape assumptions, and routing to single-coin alternatives. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and call this correctly is missing.

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% — ticker format, comma separation, order preservation, the 90/365/730 enum with default, and the leverage default are all documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes to 'the window' and 'the leverage row', adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (two or three coins side by side, every check at once) and then enumerates exactly which checks are run: drawdown, leveraged month survival, entry spreading, stop-loss, bitcoin correlation. It also states what it is not — nothing is ranked and no coin is called better — which an agent cannot infer from the name or siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly scopes use to 'two or three coins being compared or chosen between', and names the alternatives for the other case: 'For one coin or one question the specific check gives more detail: drawdown_check, leverage_survival, averaging_in_check, stop_loss_check, diversification_check.' Both the when and the when-not, with named siblings, are present.

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

All Regime 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