EventTrader MCP

Agent Onboard

agent_onboard

ONE call that does everything for your owner that does not need them: checks you are registered (no key → the one register call), sets up the account (a linked owner, or the one-click approve link to give them), returns the owner's DEDICATED Tuatara Hedge Fund deposit address (no application — the deposit is the subscription; terms included) and their account deposit address (USDT on Ethereum mainnet first), one measured setup for their goal when you send it, the IRC/mailbox channels where NEXUS tells you when the money arrives, the owner's share link, and next_action. Every address is the full string — show it whole. Nothing is placed. (no key needed)

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": "agent_onboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`via`	No	your client (muse, openclaw, hermes, dot, chatgpt, …)
`exclude`	No	tickers never to use
`symbols`	No	the owner's own picks — builds their own fund from exactly these
`interests`	No	themes, sectors, coins — optional
`risk_tier`	No	1 very low … 5 very high, or plain words ('conservative', 'aggressive'); default 3
`session_id`	No	returned by the first call; send it again
`target_pct`	No	target return in percent
`asset_class`	No	Stocks, crypto, or both (the user's choice; one class = one vehicle).
`usdc_amount`	No	dollars of the owner's own money
`horizon_days`	No	days the owner can give it (default 30)
`conversation_id`	No	returned by the first call; send it on every turn

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), it adds genuinely useful behavior: 'Nothing is placed' clarifies that account creation does not trade, the deposit is framed as the subscription with terms included, and 'Every address is the full string - show it whole' is an output-handling rule. It stops short of describing rate limits, what happens on a second call, or error modes.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The entire description is a single run-on sentence with nested parentheticals that concatenates seven or eight distinct capabilities. Information density is high and there is no filler, but the lack of sentence breaks or ordering means key facts (no key needed, nothing is placed) are buried at the end and the agent must re-parse to extract them.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating the return payload (addresses, channels, share link, next_action). However, for a multi-turn onboarding call flagged idempotentHint=false it does not explain the call sequence, what session_id vs conversation_id govern, or how a repeat call differs from the first - gaps that matter for correct invocation.

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%, so each of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning: 'one measured setup for their goal when you send it' vaguely alludes to risk_tier/horizon_days/target_pct without naming or disambiguating them, and the USDT-on-Ethereum note concerns the returned address rather than an input. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 a concrete bundle of outcomes: registration check, account/linked-owner setup, the Tuatara deposit address, an account deposit address, a setup for the goal, IRC/mailbox channels, the share link, and next_action. It also gestures at the sibling it defers to ('no key -> the one register call'). The purpose is discernible but is delivered as one undifferentiated list rather than a crisp verb+resource statement, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 '(no key needed)' parenthetical and the registration check suggest this is the first call an unregistered agent should make, but the description never states 'call this before X' or 'use tuatara_deposit_address / get_deposit_address instead when Y'. It also does not explain what to do on repeat calls beyond 'send session_id again', which is already in the schema.

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

All EventTrader MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?