Retrieve profit and loss data for your Interactive Brokers account, with optional account ID filter.
Get profit and loss.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_pnl"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account ID (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is merely 'Get profit and loss,' which is almost tautological. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses no behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens with missing parameters.
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?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks front-loading of important information and does not justify its brevity with sufficient context.
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?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description should provide context about what profit and loss represents (e.g., cumulative, daily, per account). It is incomplete for a financial tool with many siblings.
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% (one optional account parameter with description). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description states the tool gets profit and loss, which clarifies the acronym PnL. However, it lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., overall or per account, time period) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_account_summary or get_portfolio.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many financial data tools among siblings, and the description does not indicate prerequisites or context (e.g., connection required, account filtering).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.