Run MACD trend follower strategy backtest for one ticker.
`period`: history window, e.g. "1y","2y","5y","10y" (default "2y").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fast | No | ||
| slow | No | ||
| period | No | 2y | |
| signal | No | ||
| ticker | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action 'Run ... backtest' without explaining side effects, output format, data requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The single-ticker scope is mentioned, but behavior beyond the basic command is opaque.
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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for the period parameter. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds only a minimal, useful parameter note. No filler or redundant content.
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?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits return value expectations, how to interpret backtest results, data source behavior, or limitations of the strategy. An agent would not know what output to expect or how to set fast/slow/signal parameters confidently.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only documents the `period` parameter with examples and a default. The fast, slow, signal, and ticker parameters are completely unaddressed. While their names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not explain how they affect the MACD calculation or that ticker is required, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run MACD trend follower strategy backtest for one ticker.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling backtest tools by naming the exact strategy variant (e.g., trend follower vs. MACD momentum).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as backtest_macd_momentum or other strategy backtests. It does not state conditions like 'use for trending markets' or mention any exclusions or sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
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.
Several tools overlap significantly: plot_charts is an explicit alias for generate_charts, generate_chart_pack and generate_charts have similar purposes, and backtesting tools like backtest_macd_momentum vs backtest_macd_trend_follower or backtest_mean_reversion_rsi_bb vs backtest_rsi_mean_reversion are easily confused. The sector tools also have fuzzy boundaries.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (analyze_*, backtest_*, get_*, generate_*). However, two tools use a 'tool' suffix (analyze_sector_intelligence_tool, find_sector_stock_pipeline_tool) which deviates from the otherwise consistent naming style.
At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end of the acceptable range. The scope is broad (analysis, backtesting, charting, portfolio optimization, alerts), but redundant chart tools and overlapping backtest strategies inflate the count and hurt focus.
The toolset covers the core domain well: technical analysis, backtesting, trade planning, portfolio optimization, quotes, news, and alerts. Minor gaps exist, such as no watchlist management tool (scanning only) and no direct historical data fetch, but these are workable around the existing tools.