tradingcli

account_create

Create a new trading account for simulated paper trading. Specify an initial cash balance and use an idempotency key to safely retry account creation requests.

Instructions

Create an account. Reuse idempotency_key safely when retrying the same mutation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "account_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cash`	No
`name`	Yes
`agent`	No	mcp
`idempotency_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions idempotency_key safety for retries, which adds value, but omits details on required permissions, side effects beyond creation, or failure modes. This is sparse for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It wastes no words, though the retry note is slightly tucked in as a second sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create mutation with four parameters and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain what account creation entails, the meaning of initial cash/agent settings, or retry behavior beyond idempotency. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but contextual gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the purpose of idempotency_key (for safe retries) but provides no meaning for name, cash, or agent parameters. The default values in the schema partially hint at their roles, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create an account' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like account_list and rename_account. It lacks explicit differentiation but is unambiguous about its core function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The idempotency note implies it is for creating accounts with retry-safe mutations, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

Deploy Server