Reads trading providers and broker or exchange connections without exposing credentials, letting an AI agent inspect account setup before placing orders.
Read trading providers and connections. Read-only - credentials are never exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| providers | Yes | ||
| connections | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the operation is read-only and credentials are never exposed. It stops short of describing pagination, scoping, or whether all providers are always returned, but the safety profile is clearly stated.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the safety caveat. Every sentence 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The main remaining gap is that 'providers' and 'connections' are not distinguished, nor is this tool's relationship to the many connection-management siblings clarified.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The absence of parameters is consistent with a whole-collection read.
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 and resource pair ('Read trading providers and connections'), so an agent immediately knows this is a read operation over trading provider/connection entities. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as check_trading_connection or get_credential_storage, which cover overlapping ground.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus check_trading_connection, list_trading_destinations, or get_credential_storage. The only usage signal is the implicit 'read-only' framing, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.