Progress of a stochastic backtest.
Returns `{task_id, status, progress, message, dashboard_url}`. When the
run has finished, the answer also carries `result`, the same summary
`summarize_workflow` gives, and `report_url`, the report, which the
run's card in the chat shows.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by documenting the returned fields and explaining that completed runs include result and report_url, which goes beyond the annotations.
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 short and front-loads the return contract. The final clause about the chat card is a little awkward, but overall there is little wasted text.
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?
For a simple progress-polling tool with annotations and no output schema, the description gives a solid return-value overview and terminal-state behavior. It is only missing guidance on task_id provenance and alternative progress tools.
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% for the single required task_id parameter, and the description does not explain what task_id is or where to obtain it. It relies entirely on the caller inferring that task_id is the stochastic backtest task identifier.
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 clearly identifies the resource as a stochastic backtest and the operation as checking its progress. It is specific enough to distinguish this from most siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_backtest_progress or start_stochastic_backtest.
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?
It implies the tool is for checking progress, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of where task_id comes from, and no comparison to the sibling get_backtest_progress.
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.