ib-async-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states what is checked (connection status) but omits critical behavioral details: return value type (boolean? object?), behavior when disconnected (returns false vs raises error?), or whether this performs an active ping vs passive cache check. Similar to the 'update_drive' example in the rubric which scored 2 for lacking permissions/reversibility details.

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?

Single sentence of appropriate length. Front-loaded with action verb ('Check'). Zero redundancy or waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

Simple state-checking tool with zero parameters, so extensive description is not required. However, lacks output specification (bool vs status object) which would be helpful given no output_schema exists and sibling tools have varied return patterns. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Zero parameters present, so baseline score of 4 applies per rubric. No parameters require semantic explanation.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Check') and resource ('connected to TWS/Gateway'). Effectively distinguishes from siblings 'connect' (establish connection) and 'disconnect' (terminate connection) by using 'Check' to indicate a status query rather than state modification.

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?

No explicit 'when to use' guidance provided (e.g., 'call before placing orders to verify connection'). However, the contrast with sibling tools 'connect'/'disconnect' implies this is for status checking rather than connection management. Clear gaps remain regarding specific usage patterns or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.