Skip to main content
Glama
@true402.dev/mcp-server
by true402

quant

Deterministic finance calculators in one dispatch endpoint. POST { function, params } where function ∈ {black_scholes, implied_volatility, kelly, sharpe, sortino, max_drawdown, historical_var, cvar, cagr, volatility}. e.g.

Instructions

Deterministic finance calculators in one dispatch endpoint. POST { function, params } where function ∈ {black_scholes, implied_volatility, kelly, sharpe, sortino, max_drawdown, historical_var, cvar, cagr, volatility}. e.g. black_scholes params {S,K,T,r,sigma,type}; kelly {p,b}; sharpe {returns[],rf?}. Unpaid: free while the caller's IP has free-trial calls left that day (a small daily allowance shared across the trial stalls, no wallet); otherwise returns 402. Flat-priced per request. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.003 USD (fixed).

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": {
      "function": "<function>",
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "quant"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYesParameters for the chosen function
functionYesWhich calculator to run

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses deterministic behavior, the POST dispatch shape, free-trial allowance behavior, the 402 response when unpaid, USDC/Base payment requirements, and a fixed price. It still omits return format and error behavior for invalid function params.

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?

The purpose and function list are front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place by covering dispatch syntax, examples, and payment behavior. It is dense and run-on, with some redundancy around flat pricing, but not bloated.

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?

For a 10-function calculator endpoint with nested params and no output schema, the description covers payment behavior well but leaves notable gaps: return values are undescribed, and parameter shapes are only shown for 3 of 10 functions. It is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool but not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% at the top level, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful examples for black_scholes, kelly, and sharpe parameter shapes. It does not document parameter shapes for the other functions, so it is helpful but incomplete beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource (deterministic finance calculators) and a dispatch interface, then enumerates the exact functions available. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from the surrounding SEO/web3 tools.

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 implies usage for finance calculations by listing the calculators, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The payment/free-trial notes are useful context but are not usage-selection guidance.

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