Skip to main content
Glama
LuxAlgo

LuxAlgo Library MCP

Official
by LuxAlgo

Search prop-firm challenges

propfirms_search_challenges

Search funded-account challenges across prop firms using filters for account size, fees, steps, drawdown, and trading rules. Specify any combination of criteria to find a challenge that fits your strategy.

Instructions

Search funded-account challenges across all visible prop firms. Filter by challenge rules (account size, fee, steps, profit split, drawdown mode, news/copy/auto trading, weekend holding, …) and by parent-firm properties. Pass propfirmId to list one firm's challenges, or challengeId to fetch specific ones. include=['offers'] returns a deduplicated top-level offers list, with each challenge referencing its applicable offers via offerIds (firm-wide offers included). Uncaptured (null) rule fields are omitted from results and never match filters. This returns each challenge's listed rules and terms, not outcomes: to simulate a challenge found here pass its ids to propfirms_simulate or propfirms_pass_rates, and to screen one strategy across many challenges at once use propfirms_validate_strategy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort key (default accountSize descending)
textNoCase-insensitive search over challenge name and firm name/slug
stepsNoExact evaluation step count (1 = instant/funded, 2 = two-step, …)
includeNoPass ['offers'] to attach live offers that apply to each challenge
intervalNoChallenge fee intervals, e.g. 'one-time', 'monthly'
priceMaxNoMaximum challenge fee (inclusive)
priceMinNoMinimum challenge fee (inclusive)
stepsMaxNoMaximum step count (ignored when steps is set)
stepsMinNoMinimum step count (ignored when steps is set)
directionNoSort direction; each sort key has a sensible default
pageIndexNo0-based page index (default 0)
maxLossMaxNoUpper bound on the overall-loss limit magnitude
propfirmIdNoPublic firm slugs, e.g. ['ftmo']
autoTradingNoWhether automated trading (EAs/bots) is allowed
availableInNoCountry names the firm must NOT restrict, e.g. ['United States']
challengeIdNoPublic challenge ids
copyTradingNoWhether copy trading is allowed
maxLossModeNoDrawdown modes; challenges without a captured mode never match
newsTradingNoWhether news trading is allowed
dailyLossMaxNoUpper bound on the daily-loss limit magnitude (smaller = stricter)
pageQuantityNoPage size (default 50, max 100)
productTypesNoProduct types the firm must offer at least one of, e.g. 'CFD', 'Futures'
challengeNameNoCase-insensitive substring of the challenge name
accountSizeMaxNoMaximum account size (inclusive)
accountSizeMinNoMinimum account size (inclusive)
maxLeverageMinNoMinimum max leverage
profitSplitMinNoMinimum trader profit-split percent
weekendHoldingNoWhether holding over the weekend is allowed
isFeeRefundableNoWhether the challenge fee is refundable
overnightHoldingNoWhether holding overnight is allowed
stoplossRequiredNoWhether a stop loss is required
tradingPlatformsNoPlatforms the firm must offer at least one of, e.g. 'MT5', 'cTrader', 'TradingView'
minTradingDaysMaxNoMaximum required minimum trading days (finds less-strict challenges)
tradedMarketTypesNoMarkets the firm must offer at least one of, e.g. 'forex', 'indices', 'commodities'
isPreferredPartnerNoOnly LuxAlgo preferred-partner firms when true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that uncaptured null rule fields are omitted and never match filters, explains the deduplicated offers list behavior, and clarifies that this tool returns rules and terms, not outcomes. It could mention pagination or response shape more explicitly, but the disclosed edge cases are valuable.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and filter scope, then moves to parameter usage, edge-case behavior, and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, and the parenthetical filter list conveys breadth without bloating the text.

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 35-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers input modes, optional offers expansion, null-filtering behavior, and clearly states what the tool does not return while pointing to the correct follow-up tools. The lack of a full output shape description is mitigated by the rich schema and the explicit 'rules and terms, not outcomes' framing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning beyond the schema for key parameters: propfirmId vs challengeId selection, include=['offers'] behavior, and null-field filter semantics. It does not need to restate all 35 parameters because the schema already documents them thoroughly.

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: search funded-account challenges across visible prop firms, with filtering by challenge rules and firm properties. It also explicitly differentiates itself from simulation tools by saying it returns rules/terms, not outcomes. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like propfirms_simulate and propfirms_validate_strategy.

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 explicit usage scenarios: pass propfirmId to list one firm's challenges, challengeId to fetch specific ones, and include=['offers'] to attach offers. It also names alternatives and when to use them: propfirms_simulate/propfirms_pass_rates for outcomes and propfirms_validate_strategy for screening one strategy across many challenges.

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