QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('broadcast') but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's destructive (e.g., could affect trading), rate limits, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a tool that likely impacts live trading operations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and target. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (broadcasting commands to live algorithms, likely with financial implications), the description is insufficient. Annotations are minimal, schema coverage is 0%, and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't address critical aspects like safety, permissions, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The description mentions 'organization' but doesn't explain parameters beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters like 'command' and 'excludeProjectId' are undocumented in both schema and description. However, the description implies the 'organization' context, adding minimal value over the bare schema.

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 a live command') and target ('to all live algorithms in an organization'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_live_command' or 'stop_live_algorithm', which could handle similar contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_live_command' (for single algorithms) or 'liquidate_live_algorithm' (for stopping). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring live algorithms to be running, or exclusions, leaving usage context implied but unspecified.

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