Retrieve available trading margins for a Zerodha Kite account, optionally scoped to equity or commodity segments, to check buying power before placing trades.
Get available trading margins. Optionally scoped to a segment (equity or commodity).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| segment | No | Margin segment to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Get" signals a non-mutating lookup and "available" hints the values returned are currently usable margins rather than computed requirements, but there is no mention of account scoping, permissions, rate limits, or freshness of the margin values.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the optional scoping detail.
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 one-parameter, zero-required read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers enough to invoke it correctly. The one gap is disambiguation from the two calculate_* margin siblings, which the description leaves unaddressed.
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 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the filter is optional and repeats the two enum values, adding no semantics beyond the structured field.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get available trading margins") and adds a scope qualifier. It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent calculate_order_margins / calculate_basket_margins siblings, so an agent must infer whether "available" means a lookup of existing margin balances versus a computed requirement.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus calculate_order_margins or calculate_basket_margins, which appear in the sibling list and share the margins domain. The only guidance is that the segment filter is optional, which is usage of a parameter, not of the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.