Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch

Get Mayer Multiple

arena_get_mayer_multiple

Is BTC stretched against its 200-day average? Returns the current Mayer Multiple — BTC price divided by its 200-day SMA — as spelled-out fields: date, mayer_multiple, price_usd, sma_200d (with sma_200d_source declaring its provenance) and the Trace Mayer (2014) bands as a machine-readable field (<0.7 capitulation, 0.7–1.5 neutral, 1.5–2.4 bullish, >2.4 euphoria). The former raw row shape (d, value.v, value.close) is still present but deprecated — see deprecated_fields with removal date. One ratio, not a regime call: for the multi-indicator cycle read use arena_get_cycle, for the series behind this number arena_get_mayer_multiple_history. The bands are historical description, not thresholds to trade. [Free tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
-}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "context"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full duty of behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively reveals what is returned (spelled-out fields plus a deprecated raw row shape with removal date), semantics of the bands, and clarifies that this is a single ratio, not a regime call. The free-tier mention further sets expectations. This is thorough transparency with no contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by field details, deprecation note, and reasoning for alternatives. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff. Although it's longer than average, the density of useful information justifies its length, and the structure (question → answer → caveats → alternatives) is logical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no input parameters and no output schema, the description must fully describe both the request and the response. It does: it lists return fields with provenance, explains the deprecated shape, defines the interpretation bands, clarifies the scope (single ratio), and points to sibling tools for related needs. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke and interpret this tool is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. But the description goes beyond by explaining the meaning of the output fields: sma_200d_source provenance, the exact definition of the Mayer Multiple, and the enumeration of band thresholds with their labels. This adds semantic value that no schema could provide, making it a 5.

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 opens with the exact question the tool answers ('Is BTC stretched against its 200-day average?') and then precisely states the product: the Mayer Multiple with its formula and return fields. It explicitly differentiates from siblings (arena_get_cycle for multi-indicator regime, arena_get_mayer_multiple_history for the series), so an agent can instantly identify this tool's unique role among a large sibling set.

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?

The description gives explicit selection guidance: use this for the single current ratio, use arena_get_cycle for broader cycle context, and arena_get_mayer_multiple_history for the underlying series. It also adds a caution about not treating bands as trade thresholds, preventing misuse. This unambiguously tells the agent when to invoke it versus 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