Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
traivo-mcp

traivo-mcp

Official
by traivoxyz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Traivo AI scorecard

get_scorecard
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Traivo AI's public trade scorecard: every call graded against live prices, misses included, with recent-result summaries. Filter by symbol/status to review open, win, loss, or closed calls.

Instructions

Traivo AI's public scorecard: every trade call it made (symbol, side, entry, stop, target, block), graded against live prices — target first = win, stop first = loss, expiry = sign of the return. Misses are included. Returns the summary over the latest calls and the matching calls, newest first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_scorecard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows to return (default 50, max 200).
statusNoFilter: open, win, loss, or closed (win + loss).
symbolNoOnly calls on this symbol.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the grading methodology, that misses are included (no survivorship bias), and that results are returned newest first. It stops short of describing what the 'summary' contains or how the limit interacts with the summary, so 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity, and every clause (fields, grading rule, misses included, ordering) carries information. The em-dash grading clause is dense but readable; no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the data is, how it is graded, that losing/missing calls are retained, and the ordering. The only gap is the shape of the returned 'summary', which the absence of an output schema leaves partly unexplained.

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 100%, so limit, status (including the closed = win + loss semantics), and symbol are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the phrase 'the matching calls', so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: "Traivo AI's public scorecard: every trade call it made (symbol, side, entry, stop, target, block)". The grading rule set (target first = win, stop first = loss, expiry = sign of return) makes the resource's semantics unambiguous, and it is plainly distinguishable from siblings like get_portfolio or get_trade_quote.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking Traivo AI's historical call accuracy, but the description never states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g. get_portfolio for current holdings vs this for track record) and names no sibling or exclusion.

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