TradeStaq MCP

Official

by the-staq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

deploy_bot

Deploy a trading strategy as a bot. Defaults to paper trading, with option for live trading on specified exchange.

Instructions

Deploy a strategy as a trading bot. Defaults to paper trading for safety.

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": {
      "strategyId": "<strategyId>",
      "exchangeId": "<exchangeId>"
    },
    "name": "deploy_bot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`live`	No	If true, trades with real money. Defaults to paper.
`name`	No
`symbol`	No		BTC/USDT
`leverage`	No
`stopLoss`	No	Stop loss % (e.g. 5)
`exchangeId`	Yes	Exchange account ID
`strategyId`	Yes	Strategy ID to deploy
`takeProfit`	No	Take profit % (e.g. 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses a key safety default (paper trading) but omits details about live mode behavior, authentication needs, or potential destructive outcomes.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and a critical safety detail. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks information about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. It does not tell the agent what happens upon successful deployment or what formats are returned.

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 description coverage is 63% (moderate). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only clarifying the live parameter's default. For parameters without schema descriptions (e.g., name, symbol), no additional context is provided.

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 the tool's action ('Deploy a strategy as a trading bot') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_bot or list_bots. It also adds a key behavior (defaults to paper trading) that differentiates it from live deployments.

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?

The description mentions a default safety behavior (paper trading) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_strategy or what_if_backtest. It does not specify prerequisites or contraindications.

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