FILTRIX.net

reset_paper_account

DestructiveIdempotent

Start a new paper epoch with fresh capital: closes every run and position. History stays readable by epoch. Confirm with the user first.

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": {
      "capital": "<capital>",
      "limits": "<limits>"
    },
    "name": "reset_paper_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limits`	Yes	Risk limits: max_open_risk (USD, decimal string: total risk to the stops of all open positions), daily_loss_limit (USD, decimal string: an equity drop since the session start that stops new entries for the session), max_symbols (integer 1..1000: symbols held at once). Example: {"max_open_risk": "2000", "daily_loss_limit": "1000", "max_symbols": 5}.
`capital`	Yes	Simulated capital in USD as a decimal string, e.g. '100000'.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional key that makes a retry safe: the same key replays the first answer instead of acting twice. Derived from the other arguments when omitted.
`expected_version`	No	Paper account version from get_paper_account; the command is refused if the account changed since. Fetched for you when omitted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds real value by naming what gets destroyed ('every run and position') and that history remains readable by epoch, but it says nothing about permissions or how the new capital interacts with prior state.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side effect. Every sentence carries information; there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

Given an output schema exists and every parameter is documented in the schema, the description only needs to convey the destructive scope and the confirmation requirement, which it does. A note on irreversibility or what happens to in-flight orders would round it out.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested limits object is thoroughly documented in the schema, including examples for max_open_risk, daily_loss_limit, and max_symbols. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as capital bounds or limits validation rules, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a new paper epoch with fresh capital') and immediately discloses the effect ('closes every run and position'), which separates it from the read-only siblings like get_paper_account. It does not explicitly contrast with create_paper_account, so the boundary with that sibling is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides one concrete procedural constraint ('Confirm with the user first') but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never names the alternative tools (create_paper_account, close_all_paper_positions) that an agent might pick instead.

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

All FILTRIX.net 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?