ib-async-mcp

by atomcp-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

what_if_order

Check margin impact of an order without submitting it. Input contract details and action to see required margin.

Instructions

Check margin impact without placing order.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contract_type": "<contract_type>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "quantity": "<quantity>"
    },
    "name": "what_if_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`contract_type`	Yes
`symbol`	Yes
`exchange`	No	SMART
`currency`	No	USD
`action`	Yes
`quantity`	Yes
`order_type`	No	market
`limit_price`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It says 'without placing order' but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or returns results. This omission is critical for safe usage.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While the single sentence is short, it fails to include essential information about tool behavior, parameters, or return values. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here it is under-specified.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context on what the tool returns, how parameters affect the simulation, or any usage prerequisites.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of any parameter's meaning, format, or relationship to margin impact. The agent receives no guidance beyond parameter names and types.

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?

The description clearly states 'Check margin impact without placing order,' specifying the verb (check), resource (margin impact), and key distinction from placing orders, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like place_order.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., place_order) or when not to use it. The description implies it is for simulation, but does not explicitly state conditions or prerequisites.

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