Skip to main content
Glama
LuxAlgo

LuxAlgo Library MCP

Official
by LuxAlgo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List prop firms and challenges

propfirms_list_simulatable

List simulatable prop-firm challenges in the LuxAlgo directory with challenge ID, account size, currency, price, and rule provenance. Call first to find firmId and challengeId pairs for simulation.

Instructions

List the prop firms in the live LuxAlgo directory together with every simulatable challenge (challengeId, display name, account size, currency, price, and its rule-semantics provenance). Call this first to discover the firmId + challengeId pairs accepted by propfirms_challenge_rules, propfirms_simulate, propfirms_optimal_risk, propfirms_compare and propfirms_simulate_trades. Challenges whose loss-rule semantics cannot be established are listed under notSimulatable instead of being guessed. The listing is data, not endorsement: firms are alphabetical - no recommendation or ranking is implied, and none should be presented. DATA SOURCE & PROVENANCE: firm data comes live from LuxAlgo's public, keyless prop-firm directory API - the data behind luxalgo.com/prop-firms (origin overridable via the LUXALGO_APP_ORIGIN env var). Rule semantics are used verbatim where the directory serves structured rule columns; where it serves only free text, semantics are inferred ONLY when one reasonable reading exists, and every inferred field is disclosed in inferredFields (provenance 'directory+inferred') - relay those to the user next to any numbers. Challenges whose loss rules cannot be established are refused as not simulatable rather than guessed. Firms change rules; each firm's own page is always authoritative. NOTE: this lists only the firms and challenges whose rules the engine can encode honestly. The full directory — every visible firm with platforms, prices, payout terms, and live offers/promo codes — is served by propfirms_search, propfirms_search_challenges, and propfirms_search_offers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
productTypeNoOptional filter to one instrument class. Omit to list every firm.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the live API source, keyless access, origin override, alphabetical ordering with no endorsement, provenance of rule semantics, inferred-field disclosure, and refusal to guess unverifiable loss rules. This is far beyond what structured fields would reveal.

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?

The description is long but information-dense and well structured, with the core purpose and call-first guidance front-loaded, followed by data source and alternatives. A minor deduction for slight repetition of the 'rather than guessed' caveat in multiple sentences.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it names the returned attributes, the provenance model, the notSimulatable bucket, the authoritative-source caveat, and the sibling tools for fuller directory data. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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%: the one optional productType parameter is fully documented in the schema with enum values and a clear 'Omit to list every firm' instruction. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it lists prop firms and every simulatable challenge with concrete fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the full-directory siblings (propfirms_search, propfirms_search_challenges, propfirms_search_offers), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool provides.

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?

The description says 'Call this first to discover the firmId + challengeId pairs accepted by' the other propfirms tools, which is explicit when-to-use guidance. It also clarifies what it does NOT cover by pointing to sibling tools for the full directory, platforms, prices, payout terms, and offers.

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