Retrieve available funds and margin balances from your broker. Credentials are required.
Available funds/margins from the broker (requires credentials).
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": "fetch_broker_funds"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states credentials are needed, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a fetch operation, it's presumably safe, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving ambiguity about behavioral traits.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and a key requirement (credentials). No unnecessary words, front-loaded, and efficient.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does and that credentials are needed, but lacks details on return format, margin types, or error handling. For a simple tool this is adequate, but it could be more complete (e.g., note that it returns an object with available margin and used funds).
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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any param info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already fully describes the input.
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 tool retrieves available funds/margins from the broker, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch_broker_holdings or fetch_broker_positions by focusing on funds/margins, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 mentions 'requires credentials,' indicating a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fetch_broker_holdings for holdings). There is no explicit context for when-not to use it or preference over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.