advance_until_next_sessionRepeatedly advance an authenticated run without new orders until the trading date changes, the run ends, or max_bars is reached. This bounded helper compresses session-boundary waiting while preserving one-bar simulation steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | Run UUID returned by start_run. | |
| max_bars | No | Maximum one-bar advances before stopping; defaults to 32 and acts as a safety cap. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / max_bars / descriptionPrevious value: -"Safety cap for one-bar advances. Defaults to 32."New value: +"Maximum one-bar advances before stopping; defaults to 32 and acts as a safety cap."Input schema / properties / run_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Run UUID."New value: +"Run UUID returned by start_run."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it advances without new orders, is bounded by max_bars, and preserves one-bar simulation steps. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. No contradictions.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds essential information: action/conditions and its role as a bounded helper.
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?
Given no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior well. Minor gap: it does not mention return values or error states, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple helper tool.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning to max_bars as a safety cap and explains the stopping conditions, which enriches the schema descriptions.
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 states the verb (advance), resource (run), and condition (until trading date changes, run ends, or max_bars). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like step_run by being a bounded helper for session-boundary waiting.
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 implies usage for compressing session-boundary waiting, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context from sibling tools and the title provide clear guidance.
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.