stock-analyzer-mcp

backtest_multi_strategy

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare up to six trading strategies side by side for a single stock to identify the most suitable approach. Choose from RSI oversold, MA crossover, breakout, and more.

Instructions

對同一標的並排比較多個策略的表現（最多 6 個），一次看清哪個策略在這檔最適合。

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": {
      "stockId": "<stockId>",
      "strategies": "<strategies>"
    },
    "name": "backtest_multi_strategy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stockId`	Yes	股票代號
`market`	No	市場 TW 或 US，預設 TW
`strategies`	Yes	策略陣列，例如 ["rsi_oversold","ma_crossover","breakout"]
`days`	No	回測天數（預設 252）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the behavioral constraint of up to 6 strategies, but does not explain the output format or what performance metrics are shown. This adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key constraint (up to 6 strategies). No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and constraints. However, it does not describe the return value or performance metrics, which could lead to ambiguity for an agent. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 describes all parameters. The description adds a marginal note that strategies are limited to 6 ('最多6個'), which provides a bit of extra meaning for the 'strategies' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool compares the performance of multiple strategies (up to 6) for the same stock, which distinguishes it from related tools like backtest_strategy (single strategy) and backtest_grid_search (grid search over parameters). The verb 'compare' and resource 'strategies for a stock' are specific.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage when comparing multiple strategies on one stock. The sibling tool name 'backtest_strategy' suggests it is for single strategy, providing implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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

Deploy Server