Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Trading Signals MCP

Trading Signals MCP

by gdietsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

ATR Stop + Position Size ($0.005)

atr_stop
Read-only

Calculates Wilder ATR, an ATR-multiple stop price, and position size from account risk percentage using OHLCV bars, entry, side, and equity for risk-based trade planning.

Instructions

Price: $0.005 USDC per call on Base, paid automatically via x402 from X402_PRIVATE_KEY. Wilder ATR, ATR-multiple stop price and position size from account risk %. Failed calls (4xx/5xx) are not charged. Informational only, not investment advice.

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": {
      "bars": "<bars>"
    },
    "name": "atr_stop"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barsYesOHLCV bars, oldest first: {t (ISO-8601 or epoch s/ms), o, h, l, c, v} or [t,o,h,l,c,v]. Max 5000.
sideNo
entryNoEntry price (default last close)
periodNoATR period (default 14)
riskPctNo% of account risked (default 1)
multiplierNoStop = ATR × multiplier (default 2)
pointValueNo$ per point per contract (ES = 50)
accountSizeNoAccount equity

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful operational context: a $0.005 USDC charge per call on Base, automatic payment via x402 from X402_PRIVATE_KEY, and that failed 4xx/5xx calls are not charged. That is real auth/cost behavior an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint. It stops short of describing output shape or latency, and the idempotentHint=false is not explained.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the price and payment mechanics before the computation summary. The trailing 'informational only, not investment advice' is boilerplate but brief enough not to waste space.

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?

With no output schema and eight parameters, the description never says what the response contains — e.g., ATR value, stop price, position size fields — which an agent needs to plan a call. Cost, auth, and the computation itself are well covered, so the gap is narrow but real.

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 88%, so the schema already documents bars format, defaults for period, riskPct, multiplier, entry, and the pointValue example. The description adds only the conceptual link that position size comes from account risk percent, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific computation: Wilder ATR, an ATR-multiple stop price, and position size derived from account risk percent. The verb+resource is unambiguous for a calculation tool, though it never contrasts itself with nearby siblings like pre_trade_check or opening_range, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before sizing a trade, nor how it relates to pre_trade_check or the other analytical siblings. The only conditional statement concerns billing failures, not usage selection.

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