kite-connect-mcp

Today's trades

get_trades

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the day's executed trades (fills), newest first, with limit and offset for pagination.

Instructions

The day's executed trades (fills), newest first: trade_id, order_id, exchange, tradingsymbol, product, average_price, quantity, transaction_type, fill_timestamp.

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_trades"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior — newest-first ordering and the exact returned fields — but says nothing about pagination, whether results are capped, or freshness/latency of fills, which matter for an open-world trading endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope and ordering first, followed by the field list. The field enumeration is long but earns its place as the only source of return-value information since there is no output schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Because no output schema exists, listing returned fields is the right call and covers the return-value gap. However, for a read endpoint with two pagination parameters, the definition leaves out pagination behavior and the relationship to sibling order/trade tools, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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% and the two parameters (limit, offset) carry only titles with defaults and bounds. The description's 'newest first' hints at offset ordering but never explains pagination or the 100-default/500-max limit, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'the day's executed trades (fills)' with an explicit sort ('newest first') and an enumerated field list. An agent can distinguish it from get_orders or get_order_trades by the 'day's' framing, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 by the 'day's' scoping — there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as get_order_trades (per-order fills) or get_orders (order-level view). An agent must infer the selection rule from the title and resource noun.

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