provetrade-mcp

Validate a trade CSV locally

provetrade_validate_csv

Read-only

Validate a trade-history CSV locally before a paid audit. Reports the exchange adapter, row counts, and every issue that would break or degrade the audit. No network, no cost.

Instructions

Check a trade-history CSV locally, before spending an audit on it. No network, no cost.

Reports which exchange adapter the engine would pick, how many rows and closed trades it sees, and every issue that would break or silently degrade the audit.

The issue worth knowing about: numeric columns tolerate a unit suffix ("0.5 USDT") inconsistently. Fee handles it; Realized Profit, Price and Quantity do not and skip the row. A file where every row is skipped returns 422 "no valid trades" — which reads like a wrong export or a bad date range, and is neither. This tool names the actual cause.

Always call this before provetrade_audit_csv: that tool costs money, this one does not.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to the file. Relative paths resolve against the allowed root (PROVETRADE_ALLOWED_ROOT, default: the working directory). Anything resolving outside that root is refused with PATH_DENIED.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`header`	Yes	Header cells as written in the file, trimmed.
`issues`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes	'fail' if any issue is an error, 'warn' if any is a warning, else 'pass'.
`row_count`	Yes	Data rows, excluding the header.
`size_bytes`	Yes
`format_kind`	Yes	'fills' is per-execution (Binance); 'closed_trades' is one row per finished trade.
`detected_format`	Yes	The ingest adapter the engine would select, by header signature. 'generic' is the engine's fuzzy fallback (audit runs, reduced confidence). 'unknown' means no adapter claims the header — the only case that predicts a 422.
`estimated_closed_trades`	Yes	Estimate for Binance fills exports only; null for every other format. Pairs opening rows (Realized Profit = 0) with closing rows per symbol, so it is exact for one-in/one-out trades and an undercount for partial fills.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the inconsistent unit-suffix handling across numeric columns, the 422 'no valid trades' failure mode, and that the tool names the actual cause rather than a misleading generic error. This is exactly the kind of edge-case transparency that prevents an agent from misinterpreting a failed call.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and cost/safety benefit. Each subsequent sentence earns its place—report contents, the unit-suffix gotcha, the 422 misinterpretation, and the routing instruction. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter, read-only validation tool with a rich output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it reports, a known edge case, a failure mode, and when to call it. The output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output structure, but that is already in the output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter, including the allowed-root resolution and PATH_DENIED behavior. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden and the description's value lies elsewhere.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check a trade-history CSV locally') and immediately distinguishes it from the paid sibling provetrade_audit_csv. It also states the tool's scope (local validation, no network, no cost) and what it reports, so an agent can tell it apart from the other provetrade tools without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says 'Always call this before provetrade_audit_csv: that tool costs money, this one does not.' This is a direct when-to-use instruction with a cost-based rationale. It also implies the alternative (provetrade_audit_csv) and the condition (before spending an audit), which is exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs.

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

Deploy Server