Deactivate Manager Mode — returns to the main platform router.
Closes all roster bot positions and returns capital to the wallet.
Args:
fund_id: The fund's ID.
rationale: REQUIRED — why the fund is pausing. Published on the
fund's public manager's log.
Returns success or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fund_id | Yes | ||
| rationale | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / rationaleAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Rationale",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "fund_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "fund_id",
+ "rationale"
+]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?
No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destructive effect (all positions closed, capital returned) and the success/error return, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, reversibility, or what happens to active copies/followers of the fund during deactivation.
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 primary action and its consequence, then a compact Args block. The 'returns to the main platform router' clause is somewhat opaque jargon but costs only one clause.
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?
Output schema exists, so the brief 'Returns success or error' is sufficient. Still, for a destructive lifecycle tool in a cluster of activate/close/deactivate siblings, the missing differentiation from close_fund and the absent reversibility note leave real gaps.
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 does well for rationale — marking it REQUIRED and warning that it is published publicly on the manager's log, which shapes wording choices — but fund_id is only restated tautologically as 'The fund's ID' with no format or sourcing hint.
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 ('Deactivate Manager Mode') and adds concrete consequences: closes all roster bot positions and returns capital to the wallet. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling close_fund, which sounds like it could do the same or more.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over close_fund, nor any statement that activate_fund is the inverse for reactivating. The reader must infer the relationship from sibling names alone, and the fund_id line offers no scenario context.
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.