Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch

Get Altcoin Screener Score for One Coin

arena_get_gem_score

How does this altcoin score? Returns the Altcoin-Screener score for ONE coin, addressed by its CoinGecko id: the composite score, its group breakdown and — for Pro+ — the 9 raw factor values across groups A/B/C. Use it once a candidate is known; to rank or filter the whole screened universe use arena_get_gem_scores (plural), and for how the score behaved out-of-sample use arena_get_gem_validation. The score ranks relative attributes, it is not a price forecast or a buy signal. [Free tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coingecko_idYesCoinGecko coin ID, e.g. "ethereum", "solana"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / context
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "coingecko_id",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "coingecko_id"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the score ranks relative attributes and is not a price forecast or buy signal, and mentions the Pro+ tier for raw factors, giving useful behavioral context. It does not detail error handling or response format, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, then routes to siblings, then adds a caveat. Each sentence serves a function with minimal fluff, though the sibling-routing sentence could be tightened without losing value.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned, the tier distinction, and the tool's limitations. It does not cover potential errors or edge cases, but for a simple lookup it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter coingecko_id, which is already well-documented with an example. The description adds no new meaning beyond referring to it as the identifier, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it returns the Altcoin-Screener score for a single coin identified by CoinGecko id, enumerating the outputs (composite score, group breakdown, Pro+ raw factors). It also distinguishes itself from the plural variant and the validation tool, 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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool once a candidate is known, and directs to arena_get_gem_scores for whole-universe ranking and arena_get_gem_validation for out-of-sample behavior. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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

All Backtesting Arena toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools cover overlapping market indicators (e.g., cycle state, pulse, bullmarket ampel, volatility phases) and several share similar get_*_history patterns, which could cause an agent to select the wrong one. However, each tool has detailed descriptions with explicit references to related tools to reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names generally follow a verb_noun pattern (arena_get_*, arena_list_*, arena_run_*, arena_subscribe_*), but there are inconsistencies such as 'validate_strategy' (no arena_ prefix), 'arena_status' (not a clear verb_noun), and variations like 'arena_run_grid_backtest' vs 'arena_run_backtest'.

Tool Count2/5

With 84 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a typical MCP server, likely causing navigation and selection overhead. While the domain (crypto backtesting and analytics) is broad, 84 tools exceed reasonable coherence and impose a high cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of analytics (market indicators, backtesting, validation, alerts, subscriptions, reports) with few obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist like lack of direct portfolio management or strategy editing, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources