Regime

Stop loss check

stop_loss_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether a stop-loss would have helped, measured. The same buy of a coin, held 30, 90, 365 or 730 days, with a stop 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30% below the entry and without one, started on every day of the history. The stop fires on the day's low, not its close, and fees are charged to both. You get how often it fired, how often it sold a buy that would have ended in profit, and the worst case of each. Spot tape, dead coins included.

Use when asked whether a stop-loss protects a spot buy-and-hold. For leveraged positions, where liquidation is the stop, use leverage_survival; for a rule with a stop and a take-profit, strategy_grid_lookup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coin`	Yes	Ticker or full pair. An unknown one comes back with the list we hold and the ones left out.
`days`	Yes	Holding period in days: 30, 90, 365 or 730.
`stop`	Yes	How far below the entry, in percent: 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30. 0.05 is read as 5.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	false when we do not hold that data. Never a zero standing in for an answer.
`buys`	No	Start days tested. Fewer than 120 and we refuse to give a percentage.
`error`	No	no_data when ok is false.
`model`	No	The assumptions, stated: the low triggers, fills at the stop or the gap open, out until the end, same costs both ways.
`reason`	No	Why, in one sentence, and what we do have instead.
`source`	No	The public file these numbers come from.
`stop_fired`	No	Buys on which the stop fired. A count.
`stop_fired_pct`	No	The same as a share of buys.
`p05_with_stop_pct`	No	Fifth percentile, with the stop: what the stop actually buys.
`stop_beat_holding`	No	Buys on which the stop ended strictly ahead of holding.
`mean_with_stop_pct`	No	Average buy, with the stop.
`median_days_to_fire`	No	Among the buys it fired on. Null when it never fired.
`worst_with_stop_pct`	No	The single worst buy, with the stop. Worse than the stop itself only when a day gapped through.
`median_with_stop_pct`	No	Middle buy, with the stop.
`p05_without_stop_pct`	No	The same, holding.
`mean_without_stop_pct`	No	Average buy, holding. Skewed by a few huge winners.
`stop_beat_holding_pct`	No	The same as a share of buys.
`worst_without_stop_pct`	No	The same, holding.
`median_without_stop_pct`	No	Middle buy, just holding. The alternative, always.
`share_in_profit_with_stop_pct`	No	Share of buys that ended up, stop.
`share_in_profit_without_stop_pct`	No	The same, holding.
`fired_but_would_have_ended_in_profit`	No	Buys the stop sold that, held to the end, would have ended in profit after fees. The half nobody shows.
`fired_but_would_have_ended_in_profit_pct`	No	The same as a share of ALL buys.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / days / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  30,
+  90,
+  365,
+  730
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / stop / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  5,
+  10,
+  15,
+  20,
+  30
+]
```
First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description goes well beyond them: the stop fires on the day's low rather than the close, fees are charged to both paths, the simulation starts on every day of history, spot tape only with dead coins included, and it names the returned metrics (fire frequency, false-positive sells, worst case). That is substantive methodology disclosure an agent needs to interpret results.

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 outcome question, then methodology, then routing — every sentence carries information and nothing is padding. The prose is dense and slightly comma-chained in the middle, but it stays within a compact paragraph rather than sprawling.

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 annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile and an output schema presumably documenting the returned metrics, the description only needs to supply methodology and routing — and it does both. Nothing required to invoke this correctly (coin, days, stop semantics, when to prefer a sibling) is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with enums fully documented, so the schema carries the baseline load. The description adds genuine meaning beyond it: the stop trigger is defined on the low (not the close) and fees apply to both the stop and no-stop paths, which changes how a result should be read. It also restates the enum ranges, which is redundant with the schema.

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?

The opening line specifies the exact analysis ('Whether a stop-loss would have helped, measured') and the body enumerates the simulation design: buy-and-hold across 30/90/365/730 days, stops at 5-30%, run on every day of history. It explicitly separates itself from leverage_survival and strategy_grid_lookup by naming them. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a positive trigger ('Use when asked whether a stop-loss protects a spot buy-and-hold') and two explicit exclusions with the correct routing: leveraged positions go to leverage_survival, stop+take-profit rules go to strategy_grid_lookup. This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

All Regime 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?