Retrieve completed paper trades for an account or session, showing entry and exit ledger rows.
List completed paper trades (entry+exit ledger rows) for account/session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| tenant_session_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.42Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'completed paper trades' communicates that only closed/fully paired trades are returned. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not mention authorization needs, failure behavior, or whether an active session/account is required.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds meaning without redundancy.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and its parameters are undocumented. The description covers the core function but omits necessary context about parameter usage, authorization prerequisites, and edge cases, making it insufficiently complete for confident invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references 'account/session'. It does not explain account_id, session_id, or tenant_session_id individually, nor their optionality or relationships. This leaves an agent guessing how to populate the parameters correctly.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('completed paper trades') and clarifies the data shape as 'entry+exit ledger rows'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like avanza_paper_orders, avanza_paper_positions, and avanza_paper_session_summary.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as avanza_paper_orders or avanza_transactions. The phrase 'for account/session' implies a scoping requirement but does not explain when an agent should prefer this tool or when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.