Stops chart replay mode and returns the chart to realtime data.
Stop replay and return to realtime
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "replay_stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Stop replay and return to realtime' directly conveys the action and outcome, which is sufficient for a simple zero-parameter command. It does not mention edge cases like calling it when replay is not active, but for this tool's scope the core behavior is clearly disclosed.
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 six-word phrase that efficiently captures the entire purpose and outcome. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 low complexity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action and the resulting state. It could slightly improve by mentioning prerequisites, such as replay needing to be active, but this is not a critical gap for a no-argument stop command.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents parameter expectations. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('replay') and adds the outcome ('return to realtime'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like replay_start, replay_step, replay_autoplay, and replay_trade. An agent can immediately understand what action this tool performs.
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 phrasing conveys that the tool should be used when replay is active and the user wants to exit back to live data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as replay_status for checking state or replay_step for continuing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.