Simulate a historical option trade to review its results and price path without placing an actual order.
Simulate a single historical option trade with tastytrade Backtester and return its historical path/results. Research-only; no brokerage order is placed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | Raw request body accepted by tastytrade POST /simulate-trade. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that no brokerage order is placed and that this is research-only, which is a critical safety-related behavior. It also mentions the return of historical path/results, though it does not cover error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and output are front-loaded, and the research-only safety note is placed clearly. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a single opaque 'request' parameter that is essentially a raw API body. The description provides the high-level purpose and safety profile but does not explain how to construct the request, what fields are required, or what the returned path/results will look like. An agent would likely need external API documentation to call this correctly.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only indicating the trade is historical and single. The 'request' parameter is still opaque ('Raw request body accepted by tastytrade POST /simulate-trade'), and the description does not compensate with additional parameter-level details.
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 a specific verb ('Simulate'), a specific resource ('a single historical option trade with tastytrade Backtester'), and the expected output ('historical path/results'). It also clearly differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing 'single' trade and 'Research-only', which distinguishes it from broader backtest creation tools.
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?
The description implies usage context with 'Research-only; no brokerage order is placed', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tastytrade_create_backtest or tastytrade_simulate_spx_spread. The guidance is mostly implicit and relies on the agent inferring the difference from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.