Retrieve recent account orders and executions—including side, symbol, status, quantity, price, fees, and dates—to review brokerage activity. Read-only, with optional limit and refresh.
Recent orders and executions from IBI's 'Latest Account Activity' (side, symbol, status, quantity, price, fees, dates). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| refresh | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose 'Read-only' and lists returned fields, which is real value. However, the 'refresh' flag's behavior (cache bypass? live fetch? rate-limit implications?) and any pagination or ordering traits are entirely undisclosed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs source, resource, returned fields, and safety into one line with no filler. Slightly dense parenthetical, but nothing wasted.
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 field enumeration partly compensates for the missing output schema and absent annotations, but the tool's two parameters and the recency window are undocumented. Adequate to attempt a call, not enough to call it well.
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% and the description never mentions 'limit' or 'refresh' — it only implies recency. The most consequential parameter, refresh, is left for the agent to guess, which is a meaningful gap for a two-parameter tool.
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?
States a specific resource ('orders and executions') and source ('Latest Account Activity'), with the returned field set enumerated. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_portfolio, leaving the agent to infer the split between activity history and holdings.
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 word 'Recent' implies a recency window but no concrete timeframe, no when-to-use condition, and no mention of the sibling get_portfolio as an alternative. There is also no guidance on when to set refresh=true or how limit should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.