Broker-agnostic entry plan.
broker: robinhood | webull | webull_local | ibkr | alpaca | tastytrade.
Same Pro gates + structure; MCP sequence and price_source follow the broker.
Advisory only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| broker | No | robinhood | |
| alert_json | No | ||
| use_latest | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Advisory only' is a meaningful, explicit disclosure that the tool does not execute trades, and the broker-following sentence reveals how behavior adapts per broker. The term 'Pro gates + structure' is jargon-y and not fully unpacked, which keeps this from 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?
The description is extremely compact: purpose, broker contract, behavioral routing, and advisory caveat are each in short, front-loaded statements. No filler or repeated schema 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?
The output schema covers return shape and the description covers purpose and advisory behavior, so the tool is minimally callable. However, the undefined alert_json and use_latest parameters remain a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke it with meaningful input, and no explicit guidance is given for choosing broker-specific siblings.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the broker parameter by enumerating valid values and explaining that MCP sequence and price_source follow the broker, but alert_json and use_latest are completely unexplained, leaving most of the invocation semantics to guesswork.
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 names a specific action and resource: producing a broker-agnostic entry plan. The 'broker-agnostic' qualifier and supported-broker list distinguish it from the six broker-specific plan_*_entry siblings without needing to open their schemas.
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 makes the use context clear: this tool works for any of the listed brokers, and the broker selection drives MCP sequence and price_source. It does not explicitly enumerate when to choose this over plan_robinhood_entry or plan_ibkr_entry, so it lacks an explicit exclusion, but the broker-agnostic framing supplies enough context.
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.