oracle3

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

paper_portfolio

Read-only

Check the local paper ledger for cash, open positions, and fill count after simulated orders. Confirms fills and remaining cash without network calls.

Instructions

Show the local paper ledger: cash, open positions and the number of fills.

Reads ~/.oracle3/mcp_paper_ledger.json (or ORACLE3_MCP_LEDGER) with no
network calls. Use it after paper_order to confirm fills and remaining cash.
Starting cash is $10,000; positions are carried at cost, and the ledger does
not mark to market or track resolution. Returns the ledger path,
initial_cash, cash, positions and fills.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the backing file and env override, that there are no network calls, the $10,000 starting cash, and two important accounting caveats: positions are carried at cost and there is no mark-to-market or resolution tracking. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent could not infer from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then source semantics, then usage, then caveats. Most sentences earn their place, though the final return-field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema and could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter local read tool with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: data source, absence of network calls, and the accounting semantics that make the numbers interpretable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless call and adds no misleading argument guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (show) and resource (local paper ledger) and enumerates the contents (cash, open positions, fill count). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like paper_order, paper_reset, and the market-data tools, since it is the read-side of the paper trading pair.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use it after paper_order to confirm fills and remaining cash,' naming the sibling and the triggering condition. It lacks an explicit when-not statement or mention of paper_reset, but the affirmative guidance is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server