get_venue_rulesRetrieve the tick size, step size, and minimums a trading account’s venue accepts per symbol so you can size and price orders correctly.
What the trading account's venue accepts per symbol: tick size, step size, minimums, as the engine last read them. Use it to size and price orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | One symbol; all when left out. | |
| tradingAccountId | Yes | The trading account (ta_…). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new context: "as the engine last read them" warns that values may be stale relative to the live venue. It doesn't cover refresh cadence or failure behavior if the account has no rules loaded.
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?
Two tight sentences: what is returned first, then what to use it for. No filler, and the practical guidance is front-loaded after the resource definition.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, which is the main missing piece for a read tool. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens for an unknown symbol or whether the response is keyed by symbol.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already says symbol is optional with "all when left out." The description's "per symbol" aligns with that but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 names the concrete resource (venue rules for the trading account) and enumerates the fields returned (tick size, step size, minimums). It is clearly distinct from siblings like propose_order, but it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or state the difference.
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?
"Use it to size and price orders" gives a clear use context tied to real workflow steps (before propose_order). It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming the alternative tool, so it's clear rather than exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.