Permanently close a hedge fund. Returns all capital to the wallet.
This is irreversible. The fund's performance record is preserved for
reporting and copy-trader settlement.
Args:
fund_id: The fund's ID.
Returns success or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fund_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / user_idRemoved value: -{
- "title": "User Id",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "user_id",
- "fund_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "fund_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key side effects: irreversibility, capital return, and preservation of the performance record for copy-trader settlement. It also states the return format. It does not mention prerequisites like whether the fund must be active, but the provided behavioral context is substantial.
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-structured, with the core action and irreversible consequence front-loaded. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose—action, effect, warning, side effect, parameter, and return—with no filler.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential effects and return value. However, it omits whether the fund must be active and what happens to associated bots or strategies, which could be relevant for an agent deciding to call it. Overall, it is nearly complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but 'fund_id: The fund's ID' is tautological and adds no meaning beyond the schema's title. It does not explain where the ID comes from, how to validate it, or any format expectations, leaving the agent without useful parameter guidance.
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 states a specific action ('Permanently close a hedge fund') with a clear resource, and the word 'permanently' distinguishes it from sibling deactivate_fund. It also adds a concrete consequence ('Returns all capital to the wallet'), making the tool's scope unmistakable.
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 irreversibility warning and 'permanently' imply that this tool is for final closure, not temporary deactivation. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like deactivate_fund or states when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer the decision from the word 'permanently'.
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.