JW3 MCP Server

Propose bracket order

propose_bracket

APPROVAL CARD ONLY — NEVER auto-executed: propose one atomic bracket (entry + protective stop + 1–3 OCO take-profits) for in-app approval. Recorded as a proposed setup row (Diary → setups → Send to ticket). Never executes, never moves funds. Needs the trade:propose scope (PAT).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "exchange": "<exchange>",
      "pair": "<pair>",
      "side": "<side>",
      "entry_type": "<entry_type>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "stop_price": "<stop_price>",
      "take_profits": "<take_profits>",
      "rationale": "<rationale>"
    },
    "name": "propose_bracket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pair`	Yes	e.g. BTC/USDT
`side`	Yes	buy = long, sell = short
`amount`	Yes	Base amount, e.g. 0.05. Must be > 0.
`fee_usd`	No	All-in fee in USD. Omit or null if unknown — never 0-substituted.
`exchange`	Yes	CEX slug, e.g. kucoin
`rationale`	Yes	One-sentence why-now
`entry_type`	Yes	market = fill now; limit = resting entry at entry_price
`stop_price`	Yes	Protective stop. Long: below entry; short: above. Must be > 0.
`entry_price`	No	Required when entry_type=limit. Must be > 0.
`take_profits`	Yes	1–3 take-profit legs {price > 0, weight (or fraction) 0..1 of position}. Weights should sum to ~1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: 'never executes, never moves funds' clarifies the non-destructive write, and the required trade:propose scope (PAT) discloses an auth prerequisite the annotations do not carry. It also states the persistence side effect (recorded as a proposed setup row), which is exactly the context an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the most important constraint (approval-only, never auto-executed) before the mechanics and the scope requirement. No filler or repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, side effects, and auth. It stops short of describing what the approval card or returned setup row contains, which would fully close the loop, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with types, enums, and constraints. The description only restates the bracket shape (entry + stop + 1–3 OCO take-profits) without adding format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'propose one atomic bracket (entry + protective stop + 1–3 OCO take-profits)'. The atomicity and OCO structure distinguish it from a plain propose_trade, and 'for in-app approval' pins the output form.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly frames the tool as an approval card that is never auto-executed and points to where it lands (Diary → setups → Send to ticket). It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. execute_trade) for when the user actually wants execution, so the when-not is implied rather than stated.

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

All JW3 MCP Server 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.