Historical market memory for AI agents using semantic vector search across years of financial market data. Discover similar market regimes, price patterns, and market context for quantitative research and algorithmic trading.
Perform a full strategy backtest over a historical period (Walk-forward analysis). Use this for testing general rules or long-term performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f | Yes | Forecast horizon | |
| q | Yes | Query length | |
| step | No | Simulation step in bars | |
| topK | No | Number of nearest neighbours | |
| endTs | No | End timestamp for simulation | |
| feePct | No | Per-side fee percentage | |
| symbol | Yes | Ticker symbol | |
| maxBars | No | Maximum recent bars to load for the backtest | |
| minProb | No | Directional probability threshold | |
| startTs | No | Start timestamp for simulation | |
| interval | Yes | Timeframe | |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| direction | No | Allowed direction: long, short, or both | |
| minAvgSim | No | Minimum average similarity required to trade | |
| onlySignals | No | Return only non-neutral decisions | |
| slippagePct | No | Per-side slippage percentage | |
| includeStats | No | ||
| embeddingMode | No | Pattern embedding mode for ANN retrieval |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, data mutation, permissions, or computational costs. It only describes the action and purpose, missing any transparency about what happens during the backtest or whether it produces side effects. The lack of disclosure is significant for a complex tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core action and method, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 18 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description gives only a high-level purpose. It does not explain walk-forward analysis, parameter interactions, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed for a complex operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (94%), so the input schema already documents parameter meanings thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter insights, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Perform') and names a concrete resource ('full strategy backtest') with a defined methodology ('Walk-forward analysis'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on historical backtesting for general rules and long-term performance, rather than single decisions or pattern searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Use this for testing general rules or long-term performance' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Classify current market state into one of the known market regimes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Ticker symbol | |
| interval | Yes | Timeframe | |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| timestamp | No | Unix timestamp for detection | |
| queryLength | Yes | Length of price vector to analyze |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's classification purpose and gives no details about read-only nature, required historical data, potential side effects, or edge cases. The absence of any behavioral caveats is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core function and is appropriately sized for a straightforward classification task.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a complete input schema, the description omits any information about return values, output format, or required market data length. With no output schema and no behavioral context, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what the tool produces or what conditions affect its results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter guidance, but the schema sufficiently documents the inputs, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('classify') and resource ('market state into known market regimes'), clearly stating what the tool does. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by its focus on regime detection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection or invocation timing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find historical price patterns similar to the current (or specified) market state. Returns a list of past dates when the same pattern occurred, the price outcome after each analog, and aggregate statistics (win rate, median return, percentile range). Use cases: (1) pre-news analysis — filter by timeOfDayUTC to find analogs that happened near a specific event time (e.g., FOMC at 14:00 UTC); (2) regime research — understand historically what happens after this pattern; (3) Polymarket context — combine with get_polymarket_probabilities to validate signal with historical evidence. Returns a plain-English summary suitable for agent reasoning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f | No | ||
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | Ticker symbol, e.g. BTCUSDT | |
| context | No | ||
| session | No | ||
| interval | No | Candle interval | 15m |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| weekdays | No | ||
| timeOfDayUTC | No | ||
| timeRangeUTC | No | ||
| minSimilarity | No | ||
| anchorTimestamp | No | ||
| timeWindowMinutes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return structure (list of dates, outcomes, aggregate stats, plain-English summary) and mentions a specific filtering behavior (timeOfDayUTC). It does not discuss error/payment behavior or edge cases, but adds meaningful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, return details next, then enumerated use cases. It is neither terse nor wordy, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (14 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides useful high-level context and use cases but does not sufficiently explain the parameter space or how to use more advanced filters. It is adequate for basic use but incomplete for full utilization.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 21%, and the description only meaningfully explains timeOfDayUTC among the many parameters. Parameters like f, q, minSimilarity, timeRangeUTC, weekdays, and anchorTimestamp are not explained in the description, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to configure a good query.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds historical price patterns similar to the current or specified market state and lists the concrete outputs (past dates, outcomes, aggregate statistics). This specific verb+resource definition distinguishes it from sibling tools like backtest_strategy or detect_market_regime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives three explicit use cases: pre-news analysis (with timeOfDayUTC filtering), regime research, and combining with get_polymarket_probabilities. It lacks explicit 'do not use when...' exclusions or direct comparison with alternative tools, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create or reuse a private dataset, import candle data, and return a compact forecast card in one call. Ideal for users who want to upload exchange or ML-derived candle history, inspect analogues immediately, and only then decide whether to run RLXBT.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f | No | ||
| q | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| rows | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| force | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| userId | No | ||
| agentId | No | ||
| rawText | No | ||
| anchorTs | No | ||
| interval | No | ||
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| datasetId | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| windowEndTs | No | ||
| embeddingMode | No | ||
| windowStartTs | No | ||
| includeForecast | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavioral traits. It mentions 'create or reuse a private dataset,' indicating a potential write operation, and 'return a compact forecast card,' but it does not clarify persistence, cost, or other side effects. The token_id parameter in the schema describes payment, but the description itself omits this, leaving the agent under-informed about behavioral consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact—two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then adds the use case. While it could be longer given the tool's complexity, the brevity is not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 22-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this two-sentence description is severely incomplete. It lacks guidance on inputs, output structure, and edge cases like tokenized payment. It covers the high-level purpose but leaves the agent with many unanswered questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 5%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It vaguely alludes to 'candle data' and 'dataset' but does not map to specific fields like rows, datasetId, or interval. No direction is given on which parameters are needed for creation vs. reuse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create or reuse a private dataset, import candle data, and return a compact forecast card in one call.' It identifies a specific multi-step workflow and even names the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_market_analogs, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: 'Ideal for users who want to upload exchange or ML-derived candle history, inspect analogues immediately, and only then decide whether to run RLXBT.' This tells when to use the tool (combined upload-inspect-forecast workflow). It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the full documentation and workflow guide for this MCP server. Call this first to understand all available tools, their use cases, and how to combine them. Includes: tool catalog, recommended workflows for Polymarket research, historical analog analysis, and example calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Focus area: 'all' for full guide, or a specific topic | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns documentation and includes a catalog, workflows, and examples, implying read-only behavior. It does not claim any side effects or mutations, and its purpose is inherently non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using three sentences that front-load the main purpose ('Returns the full documentation...'), followed by usage guidance and content highlights. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool is a meta-documentation guide with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, what it includes, and when to call it. It could mention the output format (e.g., plain text vs. structured), but that is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'topic' parameter, with enum values and a clear description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns the full documentation and workflow guide for this MCP server.' This uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific tasks like backtesting or pattern search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs 'Call this first to understand all available tools, their use cases, and how to combine them.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and establishes it as the entry point, eliminating confusion with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the same full-OHLC candle-pattern context used by the /candles chart: exact chart-supported presets, latest query candles, shape codes, historical analogues, magnitude bands, the analogue overlay ledger (resolved coverage and live-only Winkler vs trivial), data freshness, and an explicit signal-integrity gate. Candle similarity is research evidence, not a directional probability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f | No | Forward horizon in bars. Only the chart presets 5, 10, 30, and 50 are supported | |
| q | No | Candles in the matched pattern. Only the chart presets 3, 5, 8, and 12 are supported | |
| limit | No | Number of closest candle analogues to return (1-20) | |
| symbol | No | Supported chart symbol: BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, or SOLUSDT | BTCUSDT |
| anchorTs | No | Optional historical replay anchor in Unix milliseconds. Omit for the latest chart candle | |
| interval | No | Supported chart timeframe: 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, or 1d | 5m |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| includeAnalogueCandles | No | Include OHLC arrays for every analogue and its continuation. False keeps the response agent-sized |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that similarity is 'research evidence, not a directional probability' and mentions an 'explicit signal-integrity gate,' which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or the token-based payment mechanism beyond the parameter description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that lists all key elements without redundancy. It is slightly long but well-organized and easy to parse, with no unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It thoroughly lists the content of the response (e.g., presets, analogues, magnitude bands) but does not specify the output structure or format. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more explicit about the response shape, though referencing the /candles chart provides some context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all eight parameters, including enums and defaults. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource (candle-pattern context), a specific action (return), and lists the exact components (OHLC, presets, analogues, magnitudes, ledger, freshness, gate). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_market_analogs or get_pattern_metrics by framing it as the chart's context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what it returns but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions it mirrors the /candles chart, implying use when chart context is needed, but lacks direct guidance on when this tool is preferable over similar ones like find_market_analogs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Walk forward the exact chart candle configuration (symbol, interval, q, f) over independent resolved anchors. Compares analogue and volatility-scaled range bands against the unconditional baseline with coverage, confidence intervals, Winkler scores, regime diagnostics, and explicit non-directional signal integrity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f | No | Exact forward horizon to evaluate: 5, 10, 30, or 50 bars | |
| q | No | Exact chart pattern length to evaluate: 3, 5, 8, or 12 candles | |
| endTs | No | Optional Unix-millisecond cutoff that pins the evaluation dataset for reproducibility | |
| symbol | No | Supported chart symbol: BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, or SOLUSDT | BTCUSDT |
| anchors | No | Independent resolved anchors to evaluate. Anchors are spaced f bars apart (10-120) | |
| interval | No | Supported chart timeframe: 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, or 1d | 5m |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| analogueLimit | No | Nearest analogues used at every walk-forward anchor (5-200) | |
| includePoints | No | Include every resolved walk-forward anchor. False returns an agent-sized summary |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits like safety (read-only vs. mutation) and side effects. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what resources it accesses, or any rate limits. The only behavioral hint is the token_id parameter in the schema (payment required if omitted), which is not mentioned in the description. Thus, the description adds little transparency beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the key outputs. It is concise and free of fluff, though it is packed with technical jargon. It earns its place but could be slightly more readable by breaking into two sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values. It lists several metrics (coverage, confidence intervals, Winkler scores, regime diagnostics), which gives a partial picture. However, it does not describe the overall structure of the response, error conditions, or the walk-forward methodology in detail. It is adequate but not complete for such a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some meaning by mentioning 'independent resolved anchors' and the key configuration parameters, but it does not enrich the understanding of parameters beyond what the schema already describes. It essentially repeats the parameter names without adding new semantic details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it walks forward a candle configuration (symbol, interval, q, f) over resolved anchors and compares analogue/volatility-scaled bands against a baseline. It names the key parameters and specific analysis outputs (coverage, Winkler scores, regime diagnostics), distinguishing it from siblings like get_track_record or get_pattern_metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios for which this tool is appropriate. It simply describes what it does without contextualizing its use relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Auto-discover the active BTC Up/Down 15m Polymarket market, combine live Polymarket pricing with pattern memory and intrabar momentum, and return BUY_YES, BUY_NO, or SKIP with entry guardrails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nowMs | No | ||
| symbol | No | BTCUSDT | |
| minEdge | No | ||
| interval | No | 15m | |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| marketWindow | No | current | |
| allowDegradedSearch | No | ||
| minCombinedConfidence | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns a decision (BUY_YES/BUY_NO/SKIP) with entry guardrails, but it does not disclose whether trades are executed, side effects (e.g., network calls, payment requirements), or what happens when payment is needed. The description omits important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, dense sentence that packs the main actions without repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, but slightly overloaded with multiple clauses. Still efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only provides a high-level overview. It does not explain the return format, what 'entry guardrails' are, the payment flow hinted at by token_id, or failure modes. For a complex tool of this type, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain key parameters like minEdge, allowDegradedSearch, minCombinedConfidence, or marketWindow. While symbol and interval are implicit in the market description, most parameters remain under-documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('auto-discover', 'combine', 'return') and names a specific resource ('active BTC Up/Down 15m Polymarket market'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_trading_decision by focusing on the live Polymarket market and entry guardrails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is implied: this is for live trading decisions on the specific Polymarket BTC Up/Down 15m market. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor any mention of alternative tools like get_trading_decision or backtest_strategy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the versioned MCP compatibility manifest, including canonical tools, aliases, and JSON argument schemas for remote clients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'Return' operation and notes the versioned nature, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description adds some value beyond the name but lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return the versioned MCP compatibility manifest') and then details contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless retrieval tool, the description is largely complete. It specifies the manifest contents and target audience (remote clients). However, it does not detail the output format or how versioning is handled, leaving minor gaps for a fully self-contained understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters and instead clarifies the return content, adding semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a versioned MCP compatibility manifest with specific contents (canonical tools, aliases, JSON schemas). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_api_guide or pattern_search, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for remote clients needing machine-readable tool schemas, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The lack of explicit guidance lowers the score, though the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve advanced statistical metrics and forecast distributions for a pattern search result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f | No | Forecast horizon in bars | |
| q | No | Query length in bars | |
| sort | No | Sort mode for results | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of matches to return | |
| symbol | No | Ticker symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT) | |
| compact | No | Default true: strips per-match value arrays and full forecast paths, returning match metadata, horizon-end price targets, and the calibrated outcome distribution (~4x fewer tokens). Set false for full arrays. | |
| anchorTs | No | Target timestamp to search around | |
| interval | No | Timeframe (e.g., 1h, 15m) | |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| embeddingMode | No | Pattern embedding mode: priceShape uses normalized closes, featureV1 uses OHLCV/context, neuralV1 uses the experimental ONNX encoder |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Retrieve' which correctly indicates a read-only operation. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose the token_id payment behavior or other side effects (though these are in the schema). This is adequate but not rich for a tool with a significant payment-related parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without rambling.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the rich schema, the description is short for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema. It doesn't describe the return format or the relationship to pattern_search output, but the schema and sibling names provide substantial context, making the description minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it neither improves nor degrades the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'advanced statistical metrics and forecast distributions' for a pattern search result. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pattern_search, which likely performs the actual search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a pattern search result' implies the tool should be used after a search, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, missing the 'when/not/alternatives' bar for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Public forecast track record: every closed bar the engine logs its own forecast BEFORE the outcome is known, then grades it against reality. Returns direction hit rate, p10-p90 band coverage vs the nominal 80%, mean abs error, the active conformal calibration scale, and recent forecast-vs-actual rows. Use this to verify the engine's calibration before trusting its forecasts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max recent forecast rows to return (default 40, max 200) | |
| symbol | No | Ticker symbol (default BTCUSDT) | |
| interval | No | Timeframe: 5m, 15m, 1h or 4h (default 1h) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses the methodology (logs forecasts before outcome, grades against reality), the public nature, and the specific metrics returned. This goes well beyond a simple 'get' but doesn't address potential permissions or side effects; however, the tool appears inherently read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core concept, followed by a concise list of returned data, and ends with practical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the key return fields (hit rate, band coverage, MAE, calibration scale, recent rows). It also explains the timing and public nature. While it doesn't detail formatting or edge cases, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented including defaults. The description adds context about outputs but no additional parameter-level meaning. This meets the baseline of 3 for well-covered schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: accessing a public forecast track record. It specifies the resource ('public forecast track record') and the action (returns quality metrics), distinguishing it from siblings like backtest_strategy or get_trading_decision by focusing on calibration verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to verify the engine's calibration before trusting its forecasts.' This provides clear context, though it stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, which would merit a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a conservative chart-parity trader decision. V2 combines the candle snapshot contract with freshness and execution-component gates; it returns NO_TRADE while candle direction is unvalidated or canonical server-side order flow is unavailable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f | No | Forward horizon in bars. Only the chart presets 5, 10, 30, and 50 are supported | |
| q | No | Candles in the matched pattern. Only the chart presets 3, 5, 8, and 12 are supported | |
| limit | No | Number of closest candle analogues to return (1-20) | |
| symbol | No | Supported chart symbol: BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, or SOLUSDT | BTCUSDT |
| anchorTs | No | Optional historical replay anchor in Unix milliseconds. Omit for the latest chart candle | |
| interval | No | Supported chart timeframe: 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, or 1d | 5m |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| includeAnalogueCandles | No | Include OHLC arrays for every analogue and its continuation. False keeps the response agent-sized |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the NO_TRADE condition and mentions 'conservative' and 'gates', but uses jargon like 'candle snapshot contract' and 'freshness and execution-component gates' without explaining them. With no annotations provided, this description does not adequately convey safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses jargon that may reduce clarity, but it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details on the return format, the meaning of 'chart-parity', and how the gates affect the outcome. It only mentions NO_TRADE as a fallback, leaving the successful response underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters. However, the input schema has 100% coverage documenting all 8 parameters, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a 'conservative chart-parity trader decision' and mentions the V2 version, giving a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling decision tools like get_trading_decision or get_live_polymarket_trade_decision, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any exclusions or preferred use cases, only describes internal logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a compact trader decision card for a symbol/interval: TRADEABLE, WATCH, or SKIP with direction, confidence, evidence, risk, reasons, and caveats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f | No | Forecast horizon in bars | |
| q | No | Query length in bars | |
| sort | No | Sort mode for results | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of matches to return | |
| feePct | No | Per-side fee percentage for the proof backtest | |
| symbol | No | Ticker symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT) | |
| compact | No | Default true: strips per-match value arrays and full forecast paths, returning match metadata, horizon-end price targets, and the calibrated outcome distribution (~4x fewer tokens). Set false for full arrays. | |
| minProb | No | Minimum directional probability required to trade in the proof backtest | |
| anchorTs | No | Target timestamp to search around | |
| interval | No | Timeframe (e.g., 1h, 15m) | |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| minAvgSim | No | Minimum average similarity required to trade in the proof backtest | |
| slippagePct | No | Per-side slippage percentage for the proof backtest | |
| backtestStep | No | Backtest step in bars | |
| backtestEndTs | No | Optional backtest end timestamp in Unix ms | |
| embeddingMode | No | Pattern embedding mode: priceShape uses normalized closes, featureV1 uses OHLCV/context, neuralV1 uses the experimental ONNX encoder | |
| backtestMaxBars | No | Maximum recent bars to load for the backtest | |
| backtestStartTs | No | Optional backtest start timestamp in Unix ms | |
| includeBacktest | No | When true, include a walk-forward backtest proof block. This is slower than the default decision-only response. | |
| backtestTimeoutMs | No | Optional timeout budget for the backtest request |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes the output card contents, but does not disclose that the tool may require a paid token, may return a payment_required response, or that it can optionally run a backtest (as implied by includeBacktest). It also doesn't mention performance characteristics or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action ('Return a compact trader decision card') and then lists the output components concisely. Every word adds value; there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 20 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the decision card output but omits the backtest proof block, the token payment mechanism, and the distinction between compact and full output modes. It does not provide enough context for an agent to know about important behaviors like includeBacktest or the need for token_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'symbol/interval', which is already in the schema. It does not explain differences between parameters like f, q, embeddingMode, or backtest options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a 'compact trader decision card' with specific possible outcomes (TRADEABLE, WATCH, SKIP) and listed content fields (direction, confidence, evidence, risk, reasons, caveats). This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from siblings like backtest_strategy or detect_market_regime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool like get_live_polymarket_trade_decision, the description does not clarify the difference or mention use cases. There is no context for when to prefer this over backtest_strategy or find_market_analogs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for similar historical price patterns in the RLX database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f | No | Forecast horizon in bars | |
| q | No | Query length in bars | |
| sort | No | Sort mode for results | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of matches to return | |
| symbol | No | Ticker symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT) | |
| compact | No | Default true: strips per-match value arrays and full forecast paths, returning match metadata, horizon-end price targets, and the calibrated outcome distribution (~4x fewer tokens). Set false for full arrays. | |
| anchorTs | No | Target timestamp to search around | |
| interval | No | Timeframe (e.g., 1h, 15m) | |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| embeddingMode | No | Pattern embedding mode: priceShape uses normalized closes, featureV1 uses OHLCV/context, neuralV1 uses the experimental ONNX encoder |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing output format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. It implies a read/search operation but does not explicitly confirm safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters and no other context, making it too terse to be considered well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide context about what the tool returns and how it behaves. It does neither. A complex tool like this needs an overview of use cases, result format, and any special considerations, all of which are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 10 parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description need not add parameter details. The description itself adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('similar historical price patterns in the RLX database'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'find_market_analogs', which appears to serve a similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 over alternatives such as 'find_market_analogs' or 'search_by_sketch'. There are no use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for historical patterns similar to a custom 'sketched' price trajectory (Sketch-to-Search). Useful when you want to find matches for a hypothetical or hand-drawn pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max matches to return | |
| symbol | No | Reference symbol for scale | BTCUSDT |
| interval | No | Reference interval | 1h |
| token_id | No | Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access. | |
| queryValues | Yes | Array of price points representing the sketched pattern (e.g. [10, 11, 10.5, 12]) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'search,' implying read-only, but omits significant behavioral traits such as the token_id payment requirement (server returns payment_required if omitted), rate limits, or result format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action. It wastes no words, though the parenthetical '(Sketch-to-Search)' could be considered slightly unnecessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too short to provide complete context. It fails to mention token/payment behavior, return details, or operational prerequisites, making it insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by referring to the sketched pattern, but doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax or relationships beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('search for historical patterns') and resource ('custom sketched price trajectory'), distinguishing it from siblings like pattern_search by the input method. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast behaviors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear when-to-use scenario ('useful when you want to find matches for a hypothetical or hand-drawn pattern'), but lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_candle_market_snapshotget_candle_track_recordget_trader_decision_v2backtest_strategydetect_market_regimefind_market_analogsforecast_private_memory_from_dataget_api_guideget_live_polymarket_trade_decisionget_mcp_compatibility_manifestget_pattern_metricsget_track_recordget_trading_decisionpattern_searchsearch_by_sketchClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools inhabit overlapping territory: find_market_analogs, pattern_search, search_by_sketch, and get_candle_market_snapshot all relate to historical pattern matching, while get_trading_decision, get_trader_decision_v2, and get_live_polymarket_trade_decision all produce trade-oriented decisions. The descriptions add context, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong tool for a given request.
The tools are consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but the naming conventions are mixed: many tools use get_<noun>, while others start with verbs like backtest, detect, find, forecast. Minor irregularities such as pattern_search and the v2 suffix in get_trader_decision_v2 also reduce predictability.
Fifteen tools is within a reasonable size, and the server covers a broad domain: pattern search, regime detection, backtesting, track records, private datasets, live Polymarket decisions, and documentation. The count is not excessive, but some tools are functionally redundant enough that the set could be tightened.
The tool surface covers the main evidence workflow well: discovering patterns, analyzing analogs, backtesting strategies, checking track records, and producing trading decisions. Minor gaps remain around private dataset management and there is no separate low-level raw candle query tool, but most core user journeys are supported.