Deactivate Manager Mode — returns to the main platform router.
Closes all roster bot positions and returns capital to the wallet.
Args:
user_id: The user's ID (must own the fund).
fund_id: The fund's ID.
Returns success or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fund_id | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the destructive side effect of closing all roster bot positions and returning capital to the wallet, plus the ownership requirement. It does not mention whether the action is reversible, but the core side effect is clearly disclosed.
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: a one-line purpose, a one-line side effect, and a clear Args list. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information; every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, parameters, and return behavior ('Returns success or error'). Since an output schema exists, return details need not be expanded. The only notable gap is explicit routing to sibling tools, which is already accounted for in usage guidelines.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for both parameters: user_id is the user who must own the fund, and fund_id identifies the target fund. This is enough to understand each argument's role, though it could add types or format details.
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 ('Deactivate') and resource ('Manager Mode'), and clearly states the effect: closing all roster bot positions and returning capital to the wallet. It distinguishes itself from activate_fund and other fund operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from close_fund.
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 implies the tool should be used when leaving manager mode and returning to the main platform router, and states the ownership prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like close_fund or activate_fund, leaving some selection burden on the agent.
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.