Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradeLab-MCP

TradeLab-MCP

by CaioAllgayer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_batch

Run a strategy across multiple symbols sequentially, producing a separate run ID for each asset to compare results individually.

Instructions

Run the same strategy sequentially on each symbol. Each asset gets its own run_id.

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": {
      "strategy": "<strategy>",
      "symbols": "<symbols>",
      "period": "<period>",
      "from_date": "<from_date>",
      "to_date": "<to_date>"
    },
    "name": "run_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNo
inputsNo
periodYes
depositNo
symbolsYes
to_dateYes
currencyNoBRL
leverageNo1:100
strategyYes
from_dateYes
timeout_secNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses sequential execution and per-asset run IDs, but omits side effects, failure behavior, results handling, and timeout/resource implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences carry high signal with no redundancy. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and the additional run_id behavior earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin for an agent to call the tool confidently. Missing parameter semantics, result retrieval, and failure/cleanup behavior are significant gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely clarifies the roles of 'strategy' and 'symbols'. It does not explain the required period/date fields or the optional parameters such as model, deposit, currency, leverage, and timeout_sec.

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 clearly identifies the action and resource: run a given strategy sequentially across multiple symbols. The 'Each asset gets its own run_id' clause adds useful output semantics, though sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the natural use case—batch execution of one strategy over multiple symbols—but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or which sibling alternative (e.g., run_backtest, walk_forward) to choose instead.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools