Skip to main content
Glama

Backtesting Arena

by io.github.Schoasch

Quote a Custom Report

arena_quote_report

What would a custom report cost? Get a pricing quote for a custom report (universe-backtest PDF + Excel) without committing to a purchase. Returns price, universe size + preview, excluded pairs, and filter config. Crypto universes use top-N tiers (top-10 … top-250) or a custom pair list. [API Pro tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intervalYesCandle interval the report is computed on: '1d', '1w' or '1M'.
strategyYesStrategy key (use arena_list_strategies for valid values).
asset_typeNoAsset class; currently 'crypto' only (default).
custom_pairsNoExplicit pair list — required when universe_tier='custom', ignored otherwise.
period_labelYesHistory covered by the report. Longer periods cross more market regimes and cost more compute.
discount_codeNoOptional retention-discount code.
universe_tierYes'top-10' / 'top-50' / 'top-100' / 'top-250' (crypto) or 'custom' with customPairs[].
strategy_paramsNoStrategy parameters applied across the whole universe; omit for audited defaults.

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: -[
-  "strategy",
-  "universe_tier",
-  "interval",
-  "period_label",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "strategy",
+  "universe_tier",
+  "interval",
+  "period_label"
+]
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / asset_type / description
      Added value: +"Asset class; currently 'crypto' only (default)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / custom_pairs / description
      Previous value: -"Required when universe_tier='custom'."New value: +"Explicit pair list — required when universe_tier='custom', ignored otherwise."
    • addedInput schema / properties / interval / description
      Added value: +"Candle interval the report is computed on: '1d', '1w' or '1M'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / period_label / description
      Added value: +"History covered by the report. Longer periods cross more market regimes and cost more compute."
    • addedInput schema / properties / strategy_params / description
      Added value: +"Strategy parameters applied across the whole universe; omit for audited defaults."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / asset_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "crypto",
-  "stock",
-  "etf",
-  "commodities",
-  "forex"
-]New value: +[
+  "crypto"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / universe_tier / description
      Previous value: -"'top-10' / 'top-50' / 'top-100' / 'top-250' (crypto) or 'custom' for stocks/etf with customPairs[]."New value: +"'top-10' / 'top-50' / 'top-100' / 'top-250' (crypto) or 'custom' with customPairs[]."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is non-committal ('without committing to a purchase') and lists what it returns, which implies a read-only quotation operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects (e.g., no reservation, no execution) or mention authorization/rate limits. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about whether a quote requires any state change or has hidden costs.

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 concise and efficiently structured. It front-loads the core purpose with a question, states the deliverable and commitment level, lists the return fields, and then provides the domain-specific detail about crypto universes, plus the API tier note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no irrelevant fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the primary outputs, the universe scope mechanism, and the API tier requirement. It does not elaborate on output structure (e.g., units, formatting) or potential errors, but the listed outputs are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. The lack of an output schema makes some detail desirable, but the description covers the essentials.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds only a marginal note about crypto universes using top-N tiers or a custom pair list, but this is largely redundant with the schema's universe_tier description. It does not clarify parameter syntax or relationships beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get a pricing quote for a custom report without committing to a purchase. It specifies the deliverable (universe-backtest PDF + Excel) and the returned data (price, universe size, preview, excluded pairs, filter config). This distinguishes it from siblings like arena_run_universe_backtest, which execute a backtest rather than quote it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (when needing a quote before purchase) and implies it is a pre-purchase step. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for not using it, but the phrase 'without committing to a purchase' effectively guides an agent toward using this for quoting rather than execution. The tier note ('[API Pro tier]') also signals a usage restriction.

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