Fork a published strategy from the x711 Strategy Commons. Costs $0.03 USDC. The original publisher earns $0.02 royalty. Returns a copy of the strategy with your agent_id attached. Browse strategies first at https://x711.io/strategies or GET /api/strategies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategy_id | Yes | UUID of the strategy to fork. Get IDs from GET https://x711.io/api/strategies. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds important behavioral context: costs $0.03 USDC, $0.02 royalty to the publisher, and returns a copy with the agent_id attached. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing financial implications and ownership attachment.
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 four short sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: the action, the cost, the royalty, the return, and the browsing prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or verbosity.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, return behavior, and prerequisite browsing. It doesn't mention error cases, but that's acceptable given the low complexity and clear parameter documentation. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for strategy_id, including where to find IDs. The description reinforces the browse URL but adds no new parameter-level detail. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 uses a specific verb 'fork' and resource 'published strategy from the x711 Strategy Commons', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like x711_strategy_publish. It also states the return behavior (copy with agent_id attached), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description gives a clear prerequisite: 'Browse strategies first at https://x711.io/strategies or GET /api/strategies.' It signals when to use this tool (after browsing) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The action is clearly distinct from x711_strategy_publish, but a direct mention would have earned a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools overlap in purpose: x711_web_search and x711_deep_search both search the web, x711_agent_see and x711_data_retrieval both fetch URL content, and x711_agent_ping and x711_agent_telegram both enable agent messaging. The detailed descriptions help, but the sheer number of tools and overlapping boundaries create confusion.
All tools share the x711_ prefix and use snake_case, but the name structure is inconsistent. Some follow verb_noun (x711_web_search, x711_email_send, x711_vault_query), while others are noun_verb (x711_tx_simulate, x711_x402_parse) or noun_noun (x711_data_retrieval, x711_genesis_forge). Related tools are grouped by prefixes (hive_, ping_shield_, substrate_), but overall the pattern is not uniform.
47 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range. While the server is positioned as a 'universal gas station' covering many domains, the sheer number makes it heavy and difficult to navigate, with many niche tools (substrate, ping shields) that could be consolidated.
Despite the large tool count, there are significant lifecycle gaps. Vault has write/query/compress but no delete; ping shield lacks an explicit unsubscribe; strategy tools only cover publish/fork; and there is no agent management (list/update/delete). Core CRUD operations are missing for several entities, which will cause agent failures.