Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch

List Active Live-Subscriptions

arena_list_subscriptions

Which alerts do I have running? Returns every ACTIVE subscription belonging to the current API key: id, type, trigger configuration, delivery method and expiry. Use it to see what is already running before creating a duplicate, and to get the subscription_id that arena_cancel_subscription needs. Does not return fired updates — that is arena_check_subscription_updates. [API Pro 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the scope (active subscriptions only), the API tier requirement ('[API Pro tier]'), and what the tool does not return (fired updates). It does not explicitly declare that the operation is read-only, but the listing nature strongly implies non-mutation. The lack of an explicit 'does not modify' note is a minor gap given the absence of annotations, but the provided details cover the most critical behavioral aspects.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads with a natural-language question, then delivers the operation, scope, return fields, usage context, exclusions, and tier requirement in three sentences. No redundancy or filler—each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It states what is returned, for whom, when to use it, what it does not return, the alternative tool, and the access tier. An agent has everything needed to correctly invoke this tool without additional context.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate beyond the schema. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate because the description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments (no mention of parameters) and the schema confirms it. The description's field list (id, type, etc.) refers to the output, not parameters, which 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 opens with a clear question ('Which alerts do I have running?') and immediately states the verb and scope: 'Returns every ACTIVE subscription belonging to the current API key: id, type, trigger configuration, delivery method and expiry.' This precisely distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly naming what it returns and what it excludes (fired updates), leaving no ambiguity about the resource or operation.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use it to see what is already running before creating a duplicate, and to get the subscription_id that arena_cancel_subscription needs.' It also states what it does NOT do and points to the alternative: 'Does not return fired updates — that is arena_check_subscription_updates.' This provides actionable routing to the correct sibling.

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