Skip to main content
Glama

paper_reset

Destructive

Erase all local paper positions and fill history, then restore the $10,000 starting cash to begin a fresh paper-trading session. Requires confirm=true.

Instructions

Erase the local paper ledger and restore the $10,000 starting cash.

Deletes all paper positions and fill history; no venue is contacted and real
accounts are never touched. Without confirm=true it returns status
not_reset and changes nothing. Use it to start a fresh paper-trading
session.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to erase the ledger; otherwise nothing changes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Added value: +"Must be true to erase the ledger; otherwise nothing changes."
  2. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing what gets destroyed (all paper positions and fill history), what is NOT affected (no venue contacted, real accounts untouched), and the exact no-op behavior and return status (not_reset) when confirm is false. This is exactly the destructive-operation context an agent needs.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short, front-loaded sentences: the destructive action first, then the safety scope, then the confirm gate. No sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, safety, and gating behavior completely. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining the consequence of the parameter's default state (returns not_reset and changes nothing without confirm=true), which is more than the schema's terse 'otherwise nothing changes'.

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+resource ('Erase the local paper ledger and restore the $10,000 starting cash') and scopes it to the local paper ledger, distinguishing it from sibling tools like paper_portfolio and paper_order. The agent can identify exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('start a fresh paper-trading session') and the gate condition for action (confirm=true). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as paper_portfolio, but the reset-vs-read distinction is obvious from the sibling names and the description.

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