kite-mcp

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but description fails to explain what 'placing' entails (creates a pending conditional trigger entry), what happens when triggers fire, or side effects like order persistence until conditions met.

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 efficient sentences. Main action front-loaded, followed by capability elaboration. No redundant text or filler.

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?

High domain complexity (financial trading) with 6 undocumented parameters requires extensive behavioral and parameter documentation. Despite having output schema, the description inadequately explains GTT mechanics, trigger conditions, or the 'last_price' reference requirement.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description minimally compensates by hinting 'single and two-leg (OCO)' implies array sizes for 'trigger_values' and 'orders', but leaves 'trigger_type', 'exchange', 'tradingsymbol', and 'last_price' completely unexplained with no valid values or formats provided.

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 specific action 'Place' and resource 'GTT order', expanding the acronym. Mention of 'single and two-leg (OCO)' clarifies scope, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling 'place_order' for regular orders.

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 on when to use this versus 'place_order' or 'modify_order', nor prerequisites (e.g., login status) or conditions when GTT is preferred over standard orders.

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