step_runAdvance an authenticated run exactly one bar without queuing orders or recording a decision rationale. This is the single-bar no-order primitive used beneath the bounded waiting tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Bars to advance. Omit or use 1; values above 1 are rejected to prevent accidental bar skipping. | |
| run_id | Yes | Run UUID returned by start_run. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / count / descriptionPrevious value: -"Bars to advance. Use 1 for the normal loop. Values above 1 are rejected in MCP to prevent accidental bar-skipping."New value: +"Bars to advance. Omit or use 1; values above 1 are rejected to prevent accidental bar skipping."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 discloses key behaviors: no orders, no decision rationale, restriction to exactly one bar (count>1 rejected), and requirement of an authenticated run. This adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by clarifying the precise side effects and constraints.
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 sentences deliver the core purpose and one behavioral note. Every word is essential; no redundancy or fluff.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action, constraints, and typical use. It lacks explicit mention of error conditions or prerequisites beyond 'authenticated run', but these are minor omissions.
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%, so baseline applies. The description slightly adds by explaining that count >1 is rejected (already implied by min=1 in schema) and specifies run_id as coming from start_run. These are minor additions, not significantly enhancing what the schema already provides.
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 tool's action: advancing a run exactly one bar without queuing orders or recording a decision rationale. It also specifies its role as a primitive beneath bounded waiting tools, which distinguishes it from siblings like advance_until_next_session.
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 provides context that the tool is a low-level primitive used by bounded waiting tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use step_run versus alternatives like advance_until_next_session or hold_until_end.
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.