Skip to main content
Glama
recallnet

Trading Simulator MCP Server

by recallnet

get_competition_rules

Retrieve competition rules and configuration details for the Trading Simulator to understand participation requirements and structure.

Instructions

Get the rules and configuration details for the competition

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:376-385 (registration)
    Tool registration definition including name, description, and input schema for get_competition_rules
    {
      name: "get_competition_rules",
      description: "Get the rules and configuration details for the competition",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        additionalProperties: false,
        $schema: "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
      }
    },
  • Input schema definition for the get_competition_rules tool (empty object, no parameters required)
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {},
      additionalProperties: false,
      $schema: "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    }
  • MCP tool handler for get_competition_rules: calls tradingClient.getRules() and returns JSON-stringified response
    case "get_competition_rules": {
      const response = await tradingClient.getRules();
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • API client helper method getRules() that performs HTTP GET to /api/competition/rules via the generic request method
    async getRules(): Promise<CompetitionRulesResponse | ErrorResponse> {
      return this.request<CompetitionRulesResponse>(
        'GET',
        '/api/competition/rules',
        null,
        'get competition rules'
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't address other traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no competition exists. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent won't know what the return value looks like (e.g., structured rules vs. raw text), which is a notable gap for a 'get' operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'rules and configuration details for the competition', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_competition_status (which likely returns status rather than rules) and get_leaderboard (which returns rankings). However, it doesn't specify whether this retrieves all rules or a subset, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the competition must be active), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_competition_status. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/recallnet/trading-simulator-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server