Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Trading Signals MCP

Trading Signals MCP

by gdietsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Opening-Range-Breakout Backtest ($0.02)

backtest_opening_range_breakout
Read-only

Backtest an opening-range-breakout strategy on intraday OHLCV bars to measure trades, win rate, average/total R, profit factor, max drawdown, exits, long/short split, and recent trades.

Instructions

Price: $0.02 USDC per call on Base, paid automatically via x402 from X402_PRIVATE_KEY. Opening-range-breakout backtest on your intraday bars: trades, win rate, avg R, total R, profit factor, max drawdown, exits, long/short split and recent trades. 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": "backtest_opening_range_breakout"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rrNoTarget in R multiples (default 2)
tzNoIANA timezone for sessions (default America/New_York)
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.
stopNo
minutesNoOpening range minutes (default 15)
directionNo
sessionEndNo
costPerTradeNoCost in points per trade
sessionStartNo

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 (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the paid-call model: $0.02 USDC per call on Base, charged automatically via x402 from X402_PRIVATE_KEY, with failed 4xx/5xx calls not billed. That is exactly the kind of cost/auth context annotations cannot carry. It omits rate limits and any note on determinism for repeated identical bar inputs, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

A single compact block with no filler: price/payment first, then purpose, then the output metric list, then the billing caveat and disclaimer. The price prefix is defensible for cost awareness but delays the actual purpose to the second clause, keeping it just under a 5.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics, which is appropriate for a rich 9-parameter analytical tool. However, it leaves behavioral gaps that matter for a backtest — defaults for direction/stop, required bar ordering relative to the timezone and session parameters, and minimum bar count — so it is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 56% across 9 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, but it adds no meaning for rr, minutes, stop, direction, costPerTrade, tz, sessionStart or sessionEnd. Undocumented items such as the 'opposite' vs 'mid' stop enum and the format of sessionStart/sessionEnd are left entirely to the schema, and half the schema itself is undescribed.

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 verb and resource ('opening-range-breakout backtest') and enumerates the outputs it produces (trades, win rate, avg R, max drawdown, long/short split), which lets an agent tell it apart from the sibling 'opening_range' tool. It does not explicitly name which sibling covers the non-backtest case, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'on your intraday bars' signals that the caller must supply bar data, and the listing of session-related parameters hints at intraday session semantics. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites such as bar ordering or timezone needs, and no routing to alternatives like opening_range or atr_stop.

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