Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch

Get Sentiment Dashboard (DEPRECATED — renamed)

arena_get_sentiment

DEPRECATED — renamed to arena_get_platform_activity: the endpoint measures platform activity (what is being backtested on Backtesting Arena). Same payload plus deprecation fields; this alias will be removed after 2026-11-15. Use arena_get_platform_activity. For market sentiment use arena_get_fear_greed, arena_get_funding_rate, arena_get_altcoin_season or arena_get_pulse. [Free tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoAggregation window. Default '7d'.

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"
-}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "context"
-]
  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 provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals the tool is a deprecated alias, that it returns the same payload plus deprecation fields, that it will be removed after 2026-11-15, and that it is free tier. It does not describe response shape or error behavior, but for a deprecated redirect endpoint the essential behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 critical DEPRECATED flag and rename target are front-loaded, and nearly every clause earns its place. It is slightly redundant — 'renamed to arena_get_platform_activity' is followed by 'Use arena_get_platform_activity' — and reads as a dense run-on, but there is no filler information.

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 one-optional-parameter deprecated alias with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool actually measures, deprecation status, the replacement tool, and the sentiment alternatives. 'Same payload plus deprecation fields' gives a partial return-behavior hint. Minor gap: the response payload of the replacement is not described, but the description is otherwise complete for correct invocation and routing.

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 description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents period as an aggregation window with enum values and a '7d' default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at full coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately clarifies that despite the misleading "sentiment" name, the endpoint measures platform activity (what is being backtested). It states a specific resource and action, names the canonical replacement (arena_get_platform_activity), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the true sentiment tools (arena_get_fear_greed, arena_get_funding_rate, arena_get_altcoin_season, arena_get_pulse). An agent cannot mistake what this tool does.

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?

Gives explicit direction: use arena_get_platform_activity instead, lists the correct sentiment siblings for market-sentiment needs, and provides a removal deadline (2026-11-15) so an agent knows the alias is time-limited. This is textbook when-to-use vs. 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