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.
rationale: Why the fund is closing — published in the public history.
Returns success or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fund_id | Yes | ||
| rationale | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / rationaleAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Rationale",
+ "type": "string"
+}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 does so well: it discloses irreversibility, the capital-return side effect, that the performance record survives for reporting/copy-trader settlement, and that the rationale is published publicly. That last point is a non-obvious, decision-relevant disclosure an agent would otherwise miss.
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?
Front-loaded with the action, then the irreversibility warning, then per-argument notes — every sentence earns its place except 'Returns success or error', which is filler given an output schema exists.
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?
Covers destruction, side effects, and post-close data retention, which is enough for correct invocation; the output schema means returns needn't be explained. The remaining gap is not routing the agent to deactivate_fund as the reversible alternative.
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. It adds real meaning for 'rationale' (publicly published) but 'fund_id: The fund's ID' is tautological, leaving the identifier's expected format/source unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently close a hedge fund') plus the key outcome ('returns all capital to the wallet'). It doesn't name deactivate_fund, the obvious sibling alternative, so the contrast is only implied by 'permanently'.
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?
'Permanently' and 'irreversible' effectively signal when this applies versus a reversible pause like deactivate_fund, giving clear context. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative, which keeps it short of 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.