Gogi

Create Trading Instance

create_instance

Create a trading instance bound to a broker account the user selected. ALWAYS call list_brokers first, show each display_label (broker · paper|live · •••••last5 — each account is paper OR live, never both), wait for the user to pick an account by that label, then pass that row's integer id as broker_account_id. Prefer paper/demo unless the user explicitly chooses live. Default status is pending (not live). Use start_immediately=true only when the user wants live trading started now; otherwise call start_instance after activate_algo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The display name of the instance
`description`	No	Optional description of the trading instance
`broker_account_id`	Yes	Integer `id` from list_brokers for the account the user picked. Not the broker's external account number.
`start_immediately`	No	Whether to start the instance immediately

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`message`	No
`success`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026

changedOutput schema / description

Previous value: -"Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields."New value: +"Structured result. Error responses include error and message."

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "error": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "message": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "success": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 13, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond them: default status is pending (not live), start_immediately is the only path to immediately live trading, and the paper-vs-live constraint ('each account is paper OR live, never both'). That is exactly the kind of state/side-effect guidance annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative verb and workflow, and every clause carries routing or constraint information. Dense but earns its length; the label-format aside ('broker · paper|live · •••••last5') is slightly verbose but justified by the need to disambiguate accounts.

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 creation tool with a 4-param schema and abundant siblings, the description supplies the full workflow: prerequisite (list_brokers), selection rule, parameter origin, default state, and the alternative start path. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that broker_account_id is the internal integer id from list_brokers, NOT the broker's external account number — a distinction the schema hints at but the description reinforces in operational context.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('create a trading instance') and immediately scopes it ('bound to a broker account the user selected'). This distinguishes it clearly from create_algo, create_and_start_algo, and list_instances, which are nearby siblings.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow ('ALWAYS call list_brokers first... then pass that row's integer id'), names the alternative start path (start_instance after activate_algo), and states the condition selecting start_immediately=true ('only when the user wants live trading started now'). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Gogi tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?