apex_run_backtrader_engineRun the allowlisted permissionless bounded backtrader-style single-asset backtest engine over supplied OHLCV bars and declarative strategy rules. Pure TS reimplementation of a narrow OSS backtrader 1.9.78.123 subset. DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required, no broker adapters, no network, no orders, no wallet/account access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bars | Yes | ||
| costs | No | ||
| strategy | Yes | ||
| initial_cash | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint, the description explicitly discloses constraints: 'no HMAC required, no broker adapters, no network, no orders, no wallet/account access.' It also notes it's a 'pure TS reimplementation of a narrow OSS backtrader subset,' providing detailed boundary context that annotations alone do not convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two dense, information-rich sentences. The first sentence states the action and inputs; the second wraps up constraints. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, input types, safety, and implementation bounds, but it does not describe the return value or output format (no output schema). For a complex backtest engine, this is a small gap; overall, it provides sufficient context for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'bars' and 'strategy' via 'OHLCV bars' and 'declarative strategy rules,' but 'costs' and 'initial_cash' are left ambiguous and not explained. The description adds partial meaning but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Run' with a precise resource: 'allowlisted permissionless bounded backtrader-style single-asset backtest engine.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling apex_run_* tools by focusing on backtesting over OHLCV bars and declarative strategy rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use: to run a backtest on supplied data and strategy rules. It mentions 'DATA ONLY' and 'no broker adapters' to set expectations, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling list offers context, so the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions provide sufficient boundaries. Some run_* analytics tools (e.g., deflated_sharpe vs empyrical_metrics) could be conceptually confused, but their specific inputs and outputs minimize ambiguity.
All tools share the apex_ prefix, and the verb_noun pattern is consistent (get, query, run, submit). The 'agent_' subgroup within run tools introduces a minor irregularity, but it remains readily comprehensible.
With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy side, falling into the 16-25 range. Many run_* tools are similar in nature (pure calculations), but each appears to serve a specific purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The server name implies a card store, yet the tool surface only supports reading and querying cards, with no create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap that prevents full lifecycle management, though the analytics side is fairly comprehensive.