Stop live trading for a specific algorithmic trading project by providing the project ID to halt execution.
Stop a live algorithm.
| 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 provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safety to retry. The description simply states 'Stop', which implies termination but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., side effects, state changes). With annotations partially covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, though very brief.
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 description is minimal but covers the core action. Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description could be slightly more complete (e.g., indicating idempotency). It adequately informs for a simple stop action.
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 does not explain the required parameter 'projectId' beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, though the nested schema includes a description for projectId. The tool description adds no additional semantic value.
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 'Stop a live algorithm' clearly states the action (stop) and the resource (live algorithm). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'liquidate_live_algorithm', which has a related purpose.
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, such as 'liquidate_live_algorithm', or any prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.