@cryptyx/mcp-server

simulate_signal

Estimate trigger rate impact of a proposed signal threshold change by comparing it to the current active value, without applying changes.

Instructions

Estimate the trigger rate if a signal threshold were changed. Compares proposed threshold against current active threshold without making changes.

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": {
      "signal_id": "<signal_id>",
      "threshold_key": "<threshold_key>",
      "threshold_value": "<threshold_value>"
    },
    "name": "simulate_signal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asof_day`	No	Date to simulate on (YYYY-MM-DD, default latest)
`signal_id`	Yes	Signal ID (e.g. VOL_SPIKE)
`threshold_key`	Yes	Parameter key to simulate (e.g. z_threshold)
`threshold_value`	Yes	Proposed threshold value

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly states the tool is non-destructive ('without making changes'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or whether it uses real-time or historical data.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the core purpose and behavior without waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the simulation concept but does not specify what the output is (e.g., estimated trigger rate, comparison details) or any limitations. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minor context by mentioning 'proposed threshold' and 'current active threshold', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the tool estimates trigger rate for a threshold change, with the verb 'estimate' and resource 'trigger rate'. It also clarifies it does not make changes, distinguishing its intent, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like backtest_signal. The phrase 'without making changes' implies it is for what-if analysis, but lacks clear context or exclusions.

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