stop_instanceStop automated execution for a running instance (reversible via start_instance). Does not flatten positions — use close_positions when the user wants that.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance_id | Yes | ID of the trading instance to stop |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / descriptionPrevious value: -"Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields."New value: +"Structured result. Error responses include error and message."Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial behavioral detail that stopping is reversible and leaves positions intact — exactly what an agent needs to know before a mutation. It does not address the non-idempotent hint (repeat-call behavior) or whether other automation state is affected, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and follow-up constraints, with zero redundant restatement of the name or schema.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to carry the semantic distinction between stopping and closing — which it does explicitly. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents instance_id ('ID of the trading instance to stop'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (stop) and resource (a running instance) scoped to 'automated execution', and explicitly distinguishes itself from both start_instance (the reverse operation) and close_positions (the position-flattening alternative). An agent can pick it apart from the 35+ siblings without opening any schema.
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?
Gives an explicit when-not condition ('Does not flatten positions — use close_positions when the user wants that') and names the inverse operation for resumption via start_instance. Nothing about tool selection 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.