Get detailed profile and performance stats for a specific bot.
Args:
bot_id: The bot identifier (e.g. "Eth_Full_Ensemble").
Returns JSON with: bot_id, domain, strategy type, full performance
metrics (Sharpe, Sortino, Calmar, profit factor, regime breakdown),
current position if any, and recent trade history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bot_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the complete return payload (performance metrics, position, trade history) and conveys read-only intent via 'Get', which is adequate for a non-destructive lookup. It does not mention error behavior when bot_id is unknown, but that is a minor gap for a simple get tool.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns structure. The return-field enumeration is partially redundant with the existing output schema but remains readable and serves as a quick-reference without bloating the text.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: operation, parameter semantics, and return content. The only omission is routing guidance against siblings like list_bots/get_strategy_report, which is already accounted for under 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 this dimension falls entirely on the description. The Args section explains bot_id ('The bot identifier') and gives a concrete example ('Eth_Full_Ensemble'), compensating well for the bare schema; it stops short of saying where the identifier comes from (e.g., list_bots).
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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed profile and performance stats for a specific bot'), making the operation and target unambiguous. The 'specific bot' phrasing distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling list_bots, and the output list clarifies scope versus analytics siblings like get_strategy_report.
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 its use case — query a known bot by ID — but never states when to choose it over alternatives such as list_bots or get_strategy_report, and names no exclusions. Usage context must be inferred from the word 'specific', so a less experienced agent gets no explicit routing help.
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.