Subscribe to active orders in Sberbank webQUIK and return the current list; optionally include stop orders for AI agents monitoring or managing trades.
Subscribe to and return active orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_stop_orders | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Subscribe to' implies a streaming/long-poll behavior, but the description doesn't explain what that means operationally—whether a connection stays open, how to unsubscribe, or what happens to the returned orders. This is a significant gap for a tool with unclear I/O semantics.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads a compound action without clarifying which behavior actually occurs, so brevity here trades off against clarity.
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-value structure need not be described. However, with no annotations, one undocumented parameter, and an ambiguous 'subscribe' semantic, the description is too thin. It omits authentication context and the streaming vs. snapshot distinction, which are critical for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single boolean parameter include_stop_orders, which has a default of true. The description does not mention stop orders at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of a description. However, with only one optional parameter, the baseline is partial; a 3 reflects that the schema title at least hints at the parameter's purpose.
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 says 'Subscribe to and return active orders,' which is a partial tautology of the tool name and mixes two distinct behaviors (subscribing to a stream vs. returning a snapshot) without explaining which the tool actually does. It doesn't clarify how this differs from sibling order tools like webquik_cancel_order or webquik_send_order, or whether it returns trades vs. orders.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like webquik_get_trades or webquik_get_portfolio, nor any mention of prerequisites such as authentication state after login. The agent is left to infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.