kite-connect-mcp

Funds and margins

get_margins

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve available, utilised, and net INR margins per equity or commodity segment to check buying power and funds remaining for trading before placing orders.

Instructions

Funds and margins: available (cash, opening balance, live balance, collateral, intraday payin) and utilised (debits, exposure, span, option premium, holding sales, turnover, ...) per segment, plus net (what is left to trade with). Amounts in INR.

Tool call template

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": "get_margins"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`segment`	No	equity or commodity; omit for both

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the exact shape of the response payload (available/utilised/net with their component fields) and that amounts are in INR, which is meaningful context the annotations cannot supply, especially since there is no output schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource name and followed by the returned groupings and currency, with no filler. The trailing ellipsis in the `utilised` list is slightly sloppy but does not obscure meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the main burden is explaining the return value, which the description does well by enumerating available, utilised, and net components plus the currency. The only gap is that it doesn't position the tool against sibling margin endpoints.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single segment parameter already carries 'equity or commodity; omit for both'. The description's 'per segment' only echoes that, adding no format, default, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely (funds and margins) and enumerates the three returned groups: `available`, `utilised`, and `net`, each with sub-fields, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling margin tools get_order_margins and get_basket_margins, which is the main reason it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the segment parameter's 'omit for both' semantics are described, indicating account-level retrieval. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_order_margins or get_basket_margins, which are the obvious alternatives for margin-related questions.

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