mcp-server-worldquantbrain

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get an alpha

get_alpha

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns an alpha's expression, settings, in-sample statistics and submission checks by its BRAIN alpha id, so you can review results before submitting.

Instructions

Return an alpha's expression, settings, in-sample stats and submission checks.

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": {
      "alpha_id": "<alpha_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_alpha"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alpha_id`	Yes	BRAIN alpha id, for example 'qMPjAxnO'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	No
`tags`	No
`type`	No
`color`	No
`decay`	No
`delay`	No
`grade`	No
`stage`	No
`checks`	No
`hidden`	No
`region`	No
`status`	No
`category`	No
`favorite`	No
`universe`	No
`in_sample`	No
`expression`	No
`truncation`	No
`description`	No
`date_created`	No
`failed_checks`	No
`out_of_sample`	No
`date_submitted`	No
`neutralization`	No
`warning_checks`	No
`instrument_type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only a short list of returned content, most of which the output schema already documents, and says nothing about pagination, freshness, permissions, or behavior on unknown ids.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its only clause enumerating return fields that the output schema already provides.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, so the description does not need to carry much. The main gap is that it does not resolve the overlap with check_alpha_submission or state any scope or error conditions.

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?

Only one parameter, alpha_id, and the schema already describes it fully (100% coverage) with a concrete example ('qMPjAxnO'). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus resource ('an alpha') and an explicit list of what is included: expression, settings, in-sample stats and submission checks. It is clear what the tool fetches, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_alpha_pnl or check_alpha_submission, which clearly overlaps the 'submission checks' part.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The description does not tell an agent whether to call this or check_alpha_submission when it needs the submission checks, nor when to prefer the more focused siblings.

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