Skip to main content
Glama
recallnet

Trading Simulator MCP Server

by recallnet

get_competition_status

Check the current competition status in the Trading Simulator to monitor active trading contests and track participant standings.

Instructions

Get the status of the current competition

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP server tool handler for 'get_competition_status' that invokes tradingClient.getCompetitionStatus() and formats the response as MCP content.
    case "get_competition_status": {
      const response = await tradingClient.getCompetitionStatus();
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2) }],
        isError: false
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:351-360 (registration)
    Tool registration definition in TRADING_SIM_TOOLS array, including name, description, and input schema (no parameters required).
    {
      name: "get_competition_status",
      description: "Get the status of the current competition",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        additionalProperties: false,
        $schema: "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
      }
    },
  • Type definition for CompetitionStatusResponse, the expected output type of the getCompetitionStatus API call.
    export interface CompetitionStatusResponse extends ApiResponse {
      active: boolean;
      competition: Competition | null;
      message?: string;
      participating?: boolean;
    }
  • TradingSimulatorClient.getCompetitionStatus() method that performs the HTTP GET request to the backend API endpoint '/api/competition/status'.
    async getCompetitionStatus(): Promise<CompetitionStatusResponse | ErrorResponse> {
      return this.request<CompetitionStatusResponse>(
        'GET', 
        '/api/competition/status',
        null,
        'get competition status'
      );
    }
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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format might be (e.g., JSON structure, possible values). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the tool's intent without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' means (e.g., whether it returns a simple string, structured data, or includes metadata), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 here, but it also doesn't provide any extra context about inputs (e.g., implied defaults). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully handles the lack of inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get the status of the current competition' clearly states the action (get) and target resource (competition status), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_competition_rules' or 'get_leaderboard', leaving the specific scope of 'status' ambiguous compared to those 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_competition_rules' or 'get_leaderboard'. It lacks context about what 'status' entails (e.g., active/inactive, time remaining, participant count) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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