FILTRIX.net

update_paper_limits

Change the paper account's risk limits (max_open_risk, daily_loss_limit, max_symbols); they apply to new entries from now on.

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": {
      "limits": "<limits>"
    },
    "name": "update_paper_limits"
  }
}

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}.
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the schema covers idempotency_key and expected_version semantics. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, that the new limits govern new entries only and are not retroactive. It does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or reset (merge vs replace) for the nested limits object, which is the key behavioral ambiguity for 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the mutation and its effect on scope stated immediately. The parenthetical field list is slightly redundant with the schema but short enough to earn its place as a scannable summary.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema and annotations present, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. The remaining gap is whether the nested limits object is a full replacement or a partial merge, which is not addressed anywhere in the description.

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%, including units, types, ranges and an example for the nested limits object, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the three field names but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the only added meaning is the forward-looking application of the values.

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 (change the paper account's risk limits) and enumerates the three fields affected, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like reset_paper_account or get_paper_account. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

The clause 'they apply to new entries from now on' gives implied usage context (use it when you want to change future risk behavior, not to alter existing positions). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to reset_paper_account, which is the closest adjacent tool.

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?