QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retry behavior. The description adds that it 'liquidates and stops', implying a destructive operation that terminates the algorithm, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail effects like data loss, permissions needed, 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse 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 has annotations (idempotentHint) and an output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, for a destructive operation with 0% schema coverage and no sibling differentiation, it lacks details on parameters, usage context, and behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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%, with one parameter ('projectId') undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on what 'projectId' represents or how to use it.

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 ('liquidate and stop') and the resource ('a live algorithm'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_live_algorithm', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 'stop_live_algorithm' or 'delete_live_algorithm', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for liquidation. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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