MCP(Model Context Protocol)를 통해 액세스할 수 있는 매크로 팩터 퀀트 신호 소스입니다. 8개의 도구, 1개의 리소스, 제로 설정. AI 에이전트는 대화 내에서 직접 무료 체험을 등록하고, 실시간 트레이딩 신호를 조회하며, 구독 상태를 확인할 수 있습니다. 모든 성과는 백테스트가 아닌 실시간 신호로부터 전방 추적(forward-tracked)됩니다.
QuantToGo는 트레이딩 플랫폼도, 자산 운용사도, 카피 트레이딩 커뮤니티도 아닙니다. 금융 시장의 일기 예보와 같은 퀀트 신호 소스입니다. 우리는 매크로 경제 요인을 기반으로 체계적인 트레이딩 신호를 게시하며, 이를 바탕으로 실제 거래 여부는 사용자가 자신의 증권 계좌에서 결정합니다.
전략 | 시장 | 팩터 | 총 수익률 | 최대 낙폭(MDD) | 샤프 지수 | 빈도 |
저점 매수 신호등(미국) | US | Sentiment: VIX 공포 반전 | +671.8% | -60.0% | 1.5 | Daily |
CNH-CHAU | US | FX: CNH-CSI300 상관관계 | +659.6% | -43.5% | 2.0 | Weekly |
스무딩 3x 나스닥 | US | Trend: TQQQ 타이밍 | +558.3% | -69.9% | 1.4 | Monthly |
대형/소형주 IF-IC 로테이션 | China | Liquidity: 대형/소형주 로테이션 | +446.2% | -22.0% | 1.9 | Daily |
스마트 머니 CSI300 타이밍 | China | FX: CNY-지수 상관관계 | +385.8% | -29.9% | 1.8 | Daily |
PCR 개인투자자 역지표 | US | Sentiment: 풋/콜 비율 | +247.9% | -24.8% | 1.7 | Daily |
비인기주 역지표 | China | Attention: 저거래량 가치주 | +227.6% | -32.0% | 1.5 | Monthly |
저점 매수 신호등(A주) | China | Sentiment: 하한가 반등 | +81.8% | -9.1% | 1.6 | Daily |
최종 업데이트: 2026-05-04 · GitHub Actions를 통해 매주 자동 업데이트 · Git 기록에서 확인
모든 수익률은 시작 시점부터의 누적 수익률입니다. 매일 전방 추적되며, 모든 신호는 게시되는 순간 타임스탬프가 찍히고 수정이 불가능하며, 모든 손실과 낙폭을 포함합니다. Git 커밋 기록은 독립적인 감사 추적을 제공합니다.
Related MCP server: @cryptyx/mcp-server
대부분의 퀀트 서비스는 자체 구축 플랫폼(높은 기술 장벽), 자산 운용(자금 위탁), 또는 카피 트레이딩 커뮤니티(검증 불가, 불투명)의 세 가지 범주에 속합니다. 신호 소스는 네 번째 패러다임입니다:
퀀트 팀이 전략 모델을 운영하고 트레이딩 신호를 게시합니다.
사용자는 신호를 수신하고 독립적으로 실행 여부를 결정합니다.
사용자는 자신의 증권 계좌에서 직접 실행하며, 우리는 사용자의 자금에 전혀 관여하지 않습니다.
모든 과거 신호는 타임스탬프와 함께 전방 추적되어 완전히 감사 가능합니다.
일기 예보를 생각해보세요: 내일 비가 올 확률이 80%라고 알려주지만, 우산을 가져갈지 여부는 당신이 결정합니다.
신호 소스를 평가하는 방법 — QTGS 프레임워크:
차원 | 핵심 질문 |
전방 추적 무결성 | 모든 신호가 손실을 포함하여 타임스탬프가 찍히고 수정 불가능한가? |
전략 투명성 | 전략의 수익 원천을 한 문장으로 설명할 수 있는가? |
수탁 위험 | 사용자 자금이 항상 사용자의 통제하에 있는가? 수탁 제로 = 도주 위험 제로. |
팩터 견고성 | 알파 소스가 지속 가능한 경제 현상인가, 아니면 데이터 마이닝에 의한 우연인가? |
{
"mcpServers": {
"quanttogo": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "quanttogo-mcp"]
}
}
}.cursor/mcp.json에 추가:
{
"mcpServers": {
"quanttogo": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "quanttogo-mcp"]
}
}
}{
"mcpServers": {
"quanttogo": {
"url": "https://mcp.quanttogo.com/sse",
"transportType": "sse"
}
}
}https://mcp-us.quanttogo.com:8443/mcp도구 | 설명 | 매개변수 |
| 실시간 성과와 함께 모든 전략 나열 | 없음 |
| 특정 전략에 대한 상세 데이터 + 일일 NAV 기록 |
|
| 2~8개 전략의 나란히 비교 |
|
| QuantToGo 맞춤형 지수 (DA-MOMENTUM, QTG-MOMENTUM) |
|
| 구독 플랜 + 무료 체험 시작 방법 | 없음 |
register_trial을 통해 획득)도구 | 설명 | 매개변수 |
| 이메일로 30일 무료 체험 등록, 즉시 API Key 획득 |
|
| 전략에 대한 최신 매수/매도 신호 획득 |
|
| 체험 상태 및 남은 기간 확인 |
|
리소스: quanttogo://strategies/overview — 모든 전략의 JSON 개요.
AI 어시스턴트에게 물어보세요:
"QuantToGo의 모든 전략을 나열하고 성과가 좋은 전략들을 비교해줘."
"QuantToGo 신호를 체험하고 싶어. my-email@example.com으로 등록해줘."
"미국 공포 저점 매수 전략의 최신 트레이딩 신호를 보여줘."
"帮我注册 QuantToGo 试用，邮箱 xxx@gmail.com，然后看看美股策略的最新信号。"
대상 | URL |
방문자 / 무료 체험 | |
구독자 / 초대 사용자 | |
AI 에이전트 / 메커니즘 감사 |
QuantToGo 是一个宏观因子量化信号源——不是交易平台，不是资管产品，不是跟单社区。
我们运行基于宏观经济因子（汇率周期、流动性轮动、恐慌情绪、跨市场联动）的量化策略模型，持续发布交易信号。用户接收信号后，自主判断、自主执行、自主承担盈亏。我们不触碰用户的任何资金。
类比：天气预报告诉你明天大概率下雨，但不替你决定带不带伞。
宏观因子驱动：每个策略的信号来源都有明确的经济学逻辑，不是数据挖掘
指数为主：80%以上标的为指数ETF/期货，规避个股风险
前置验证：所有信号从发出那一刻起不可篡改，完整展示回撤和亏损
零资金委托：你的钱始终在你自己的券商账户
AI原生：通过MCP协议可被任何AI助手直接调用
对你的AI助手说：
"帮我列出QuantToGo所有的量化策略，看看它们的表现。"
"帮我注册 QuantToGo 试用，邮箱 xxx@gmail.com，然后看看最新的交易信号。"
"有没有做A股的策略？最大回撤在30%以内的。"
用户类型 | 地址 |
访客 / 免费试用 | |
订阅用户 | |
AI 代理 / 机制审计 |
《量化信号源》系列文章：
宏观因子量化：为什么"硬逻辑"比"多因子"更适合信号源模式
当AI学会调用量化策略：MCP协议与量化信号源的技术实现
用AI助手获取实盘量化信号：一份实操指南
MIT
Check subscription status and remaining trial days. Requires API key from register_trial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your API key from register_trial (starts with 'qtg_') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals the tool checks status and remaining days and requires an API key, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid keys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with the purpose in the first sentence and a prerequisite in the second. No redundancy, efficient, and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about the return value or behavior (no output schema). The agent cannot infer what the response contains, which is a gap for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'apiKey' parameter with detailed format hints (starts with 'qtg_'). The tool description reiterates the prerequisite but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it checks subscription status and remaining trial days, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_subscription_info', which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear prerequisite (requires API key from register_trial) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Compare multiple strategies side-by-side — returns, drawdown, and recent performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productIds | Yes | Array of product IDs to compare, e.g. ['PROD-E3X', 'PROD-PCR'] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-like operation but does not explicitly state it is safe, require authentication, or disclose side effects. The mention of returned metrics provides some insight, but behavioral traits beyond the obvious are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and densely informative, containing the verb, resource, and key comparison dimensions. No extraneous words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter) and schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks details about the output format or structure (e.g., table, percentages) which would help an agent interpret results. No differentiation from siblings or guidance on prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear description for productIds. The tool description ('compare multiple strategies') adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Compare' and resource 'strategies', specifying the aspects compared: returns, drawdown, and recent performance. It implies side-by-side comparison, distinguishing it from single-strategy tools like get_strategy_performance, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for comparing multiple strategies, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_strategies or get_strategy_performance. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get custom market indices — China A-share momentum and strategy-weighted momentum. Requires API key (get one free via register_trial).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your API key from register_trial (starts with 'qtg_') | |
| indexId | No | Index ID. Omit to get summary of all indices. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only discloses the API key requirement and its acquisition, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or idempotency. It does not mention that omitting indexId returns a summary (though this is in the schema). The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences front-loading the purpose followed by the prerequisite. It is efficient with no unnecessary words. A small addition about the summary mode would improve structure but it is otherwise well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple input schema with no output schema. The description covers core purpose and the API key requirement, but it does not explain the two index types or the behavior when indexId is omitted. This leaves some gaps for a complete understanding, though the schema partially fills them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not elaborate on the enum values or the summary behavior, but the schema descriptions are sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves custom market indices, specifically China A-share momentum and strategy-weighted momentum, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_signals or get_strategy_performance. However, it could be more explicit about the distinction between the two index types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the requirement for an API key and directs to register_trial, but it does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_signals). No explicit when-not or comparison context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get today's buy/sell signals for a strategy. Requires API key from register_trial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your API key from register_trial (starts with 'qtg_') | |
| productId | Yes | Strategy product ID from list_strategies, e.g. 'PROD-E3X' | |
| limit | No | Number of recent signals to return (max 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it is a read operation ('get') and requires an API key, which provides some behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or data format in the response. The bar is higher without annotations, and this is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. There is no redundancy, and every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite good schema coverage and conciseness, the description omits important contextual details such as the return structure, behavior when no signals exist, and error handling. For a tool with moderate complexity and no output schema or annotations, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating the API key's origin. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves today's buy/sell signals for a specific strategy. The verb 'get' and resource 'buy/sell signals' are specific, and the scope ('today's', 'for a strategy') distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_strategies or get_strategy_performance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite (API key from register_trial), which is helpful. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_strategies or get_index_data, nor does it specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed performance for a specific strategy — returns, drawdown, Sharpe, win rate, and daily NAV history for charting. Requires API key (get one free via register_trial).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your API key from register_trial (starts with 'qtg_') | |
| productId | Yes | Strategy product ID, e.g. 'PROD-E3X' | |
| includeChart | No | Include daily NAV data points for charting |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It lists specific returned metrics and notes the authentication requirement. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or that it is read-only, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's non-destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and list outputs, then provide the authentication requirement. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It lists key metrics but not all possible details (e.g., format of NAV data, error handling). It covers the main points but misses some completeness for a first-time user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds value by reiterating the need for an API key and hinting at its acquisition via register_trial, but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets performance metrics for a specific strategy, listing returns, drawdown, Sharpe, win rate, and daily NAV history. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_strategies (compares multiple) and list_strategies (lists all).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions requiring an API key from register_trial, indicating a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_strategies or get_signals, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get subscription plans and free trial info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, response structure, or whether it is read-only. With no annotations, the burden is entirely on the description, which falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but could be more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless info retrieval tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but lacks details about return format or data scope. Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it could add context about what 'plans' and 'free trial info' include.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves subscription plans and free trial info, using specific verbs and resources. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling check_subscription, which could overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_subscription, nor any context on prerequisites or usage scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all available trading strategies with live performance data. Returns strategy name, market (US/China), total return, drawdown, and recent returns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses a read-like operation (list all) and the return data. It could explicitly state it's non-destructive, but the intent is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the main action and list return fields without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list-all tool, the description fully covers what it does and the output structure, compensating for missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no redundancy and correctly implies no input needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all strategies with live performance data and specifies the output fields (name, market, returns, drawdown), distinguishing it from siblings like compare_strategies or get_strategy_performance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies listing all strategies but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start a free 30-day trial. Provide your email, get an API key instantly. Calling again with the same email returns your existing account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Your email address for registration and credential recovery |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: free trial, instant API key, idempotency on same email. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but for a simple registration tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences: first states the core action, second adds idempotency. No wasted words, appropriate length for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, what it returns, and key behavior (idempotency). Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage on the email parameter, already explaining it's for registration and credential recovery. The tool description adds context (free trial, instant key) but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to start a free 30-day trial by providing an email and receiving an API key. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_subscription and get_subscription_info, which deal with existing subscriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to start a trial) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear for a registration tool, and it notes idempotency on repeat calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_index_data2 fields changedInput schema / properties / apiKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your API key from register_trial (starts with 'qtg_')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "apiKey"
+]get_strategy_performance2 fields changedInput schema / properties / apiKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your API key from register_trial (starts with 'qtg_')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "productId"
-]New value: +[
+ "apiKey",
+ "productId"
+]v0.2.0check_subscriptioncompare_strategiesget_index_dataget_signalsget_strategy_performanceget_subscription_infolist_strategiesregister_trialScored across 8 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: subscription management, strategy listing, performance, signals, indices, comparison, and trial registration. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_subscription, get_strategy_performance, list_strategies). The verbs vary appropriately for different actions.
8 tools is well-scoped for a financial strategy platform covering subscription, strategy data, signals, indices, and comparisons. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the core workflow: trial registration, subscription status, strategy listing, performance details, signals, indices, and comparison. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Live macro data for AI agents: regime, conditions, liquidity, with input provenance. No signup.
Macroeconomic and FX time-series data for AI agents: indicators, calendars, COT, forex, commodities.
Prediction markets, on-chain flows, ETF flows, equities and macro intelligence for AI agents.
Build, backtest, and deploy quantitative trading strategies from your AI agent.
