Skip to main content
Glama

dMoERA Creator

by io.github.CacheCarti

add_bot_to_fund

Add a bot to a fund's roster.

Args:
    user_id: The user's ID (must own the fund).
    fund_id: The fund's ID.
    bot_id: The bot to add (e.g. "momentum_eth_v3").
    bot_domain: The bot's domain (e.g. "eth_usdc", "btc_usdc").
    weight: Initial allocation weight in percent (default 20.0).

Returns the updated roster entry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bot_idYes
weightNo
fund_idYes
user_idYes
bot_domainYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation mutates the fund's roster ('Add'), states an ownership/permission constraint, and tells the caller it returns the updated roster entry. It could mention duplicate-handling or invalid-weight behavior, but the core behavioral expectations are clear.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, followed by a terse Args list and a single return-value sentence. Every line adds necessary semantic value without filler.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters, the key permission requirement, and the return contract. It could add edge cases such as duplicate bots or weight validation, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates. It defines user_id as the owner, fund_id and bot_id by role, gives concrete examples for bot_id and bot_domain, and explains weight as an initial allocation percentage with a default of 20.0. This is far more informative than the raw schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a precise verb and object: 'Add a bot to a fund's roster.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as remove_bot_from_fund, swap_bot_in_fund, and update_fund_weights, and the parameter list reinforces the specific action being performed.

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?

The description provides useful context by noting the user must own the fund, which is a prerequisite for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over close alternatives like swap_bot_in_fund or update_fund_weights, so the usage boundaries are implied rather than stated.

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

All dMoERA Creator toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but browse_fund_marketplace and get_marketplace_bots are easy to confuse since both surface marketplace bots with performance metrics. The detailed descriptions clarify their different intents, though the naming does not strongly reinforce the distinction.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set almost uniformly uses snake_case verb_noun names like create_fund, list_funds, and update_fund_weights. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as get_marketplace_bots returning a list instead of a single item and browse_fund_marketplace using a different pattern from the other marketplace tools.

Tool Count3/5

At 26 tools, the server is on the heavy side and above the typical well-scoped range. The broad domain of funds, strategies, marketplaces, and market data helps justify the count, but several overlapping marketplace/list tools inflate the surface and could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core fund lifecycle, roster management, strategy validation/deployment, marketplace browsing, and market data reads quite thoroughly. Minor gaps remain, such as no update/delete operations for strategies and no direct tool for publishing a bot to the marketplace, but these are workable within the existing workflow.

Resources