Browse bots available for adding to a fund roster.
Shows bots with their performance stats and available capacity.
Requires the trading engine to be running.
Args:
domain: Filter by domain (e.g. "eth_usdc").
min_sharpe: Minimum Sharpe ratio filter.
Returns a JSON array of marketplace bot entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | ||
| min_sharpe | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output form ('Returns a JSON array') and the content ('performance stats and available capacity'), plus a runtime requirement. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe failure behavior, though 'Browse/Shows/Returns' implies a non-mutating lookup.
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 compact and well-ordered: purpose first, then what is shown, the prerequisite, parameter explanations, and return type. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose, operational prerequisite, filter semantics, and return shape. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from the similarly named 'get_marketplace_bots,' but overall the description is adequate for correct invocation.
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 input schema provides almost no semantic coverage, so the description must compensate. It does give one-line explanations for both parameters: 'domain' is a filter with an example, and 'min_sharpe' is a minimum Sharpe ratio filter. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but details like defaults, null behavior, or filter format are not addressed.
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 and resource: 'Browse bots available for adding to a fund roster.' It also clarifies what is shown (performance stats and capacity). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_marketplace_bots,' which appears to have an overlapping purpose.
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 clear context for when the tool is relevant: adding bots to a fund roster. It also mentions an operational prerequisite: the trading engine must be running. However, it provides no explicit alternatives or exclusion guidance, especially regarding the similar 'get_marketplace_bots' sibling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.