Send commands to all live trading algorithms in an organization simultaneously for coordinated execution.
Broadcast a live command to all live algorithms in an organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | No | List of errors with the API call. | |
| success | No | Indicate if the API request was successful. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations lack readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description must define behavior. It does not disclose that broadcasting a command may be destructive (e.g., running orders), nor mention authentication requirements or side effects. The tool's impact on live algorithms is unspecified.
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 and front-loaded, but it is under-informative for the tool's complexity. Conciseness is good, but it does not earn its place by adding value; it could be more detailed without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical context: what happens after broadcasting (e.g., success/failure indication), error states, rate limits, or the effect of excludeProjectId. For a tool affecting all live algorithms, this is insufficient.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions none of the three main parameters (organizationId, excludeProjectId, command). The description does not help an agent understand what to provide or how fields like excludeProjectId or command work.
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 clearly states the action (broadcast), resource (live command), and scope (all live algorithms in an organization). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling create_live_command which sends a command to a single algorithm, but does not explicitly compare.
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 tool versus alternatives like create_live_command. No preconditions or exclusions mentioned. The description is purely declarative without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.