Request Trade Approval

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that this sends an external Telegram message to a human operator, returns an ID rather than executing the order, and has a mode-dependent handoff. It omits failure, timeout, or rejection behavior, but adds meaningful workflow context.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: the action and channel, the returned approval_id and polling target, and the conditional handoff to place_order. Everything earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 schema and output schema carry much of the order-structure detail, so the description need not restate those. However, it leaves gaps around the required 'reason' parameter, the tool-name mismatch (ibkr_* vs sibling names), and when approval is unnecessary, which an agent would need for fully 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 never explains 'order', 'reason', or 'preview' at the top level. The OrderSpec and OrderPreview $defs are rich, yet the agent is not told what 'reason' should contain or how 'preview' affects the approval request.

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?

Clearly identifies the action ('Send a trade approval request'), the channel ('via Telegram'), and the key return value (approval_id) that feeds into polling and order placement. It differentiates the approval step from check_approval_status and place_order by describing the workflow, though it references tool names with an 'ibkr_' prefix that do not exactly match the sibling list and does not distinguish from request_trade_intent_approval.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional: when MCP_ORDER_APPROVAL_MODE=telegram, the returned approval_id must be passed to ibkr_place_order. This provides clear context for when this tool fits into the flow, but it does not mention alternatives or when approval is not needed.

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