Skip to main content
Glama
wshobson

MaverickMCP

run_ml_strategy_backtest

Run backtests on stocks using machine learning strategies (ML predictor, adaptive, ensemble, regime-aware) to evaluate trading performance with customizable parameters.

Instructions

Run backtest using ML-enhanced strategies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesStock symbol to backtest
strategy_typeNoML strategy type (ml_predictor, adaptive, ensemble, regime_aware)ml_predictor
start_dateNoStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
end_dateNoEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD)
initial_capitalNoInitial capital amount
train_ratioNoRatio of data for training (0.0-1.0)
model_typeNorandom_forest
n_estimatorsNo
max_depthNo
learning_rateNo
adaptation_methodNogradient

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as resource consumption, side effects, or required permissions. The nature of ML training is implied but not clarified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While the single sentence is brief, it is insufficiently informative for a tool with 11 parameters. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, making it under-specified rather than efficient.

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 (many parameters, sibling tools, and an ML component), the description is far too sparse. It provides no context about output, training behavior, or relationship to other backtesting tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. With 55% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions, leaving agents uninformed about many parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the action (run backtest) and the specific domain (ML-enhanced strategies), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_backtest' or 'backtest_signal', which are likely simpler 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 others, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only states what the tool does, not the context for its use.

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/wshobson/maverick-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server