Get detailed info for a specific hedge fund, including its roster.
Args:
fund_id: The fund's ID.
Returns a JSON object with fund details and active roster entries
(bot_id, bot_name, weight, domain, current_pnl).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fund_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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does state the return shape (JSON with fund details and active roster entries including specific fields), which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, access requirements, or whether only active funds can be queried.
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, front-loads the main purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds meaningful information without fluff.
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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It names the returned roster fields and the input, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation and edge-case behavior, leaving a small gap.
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?
There is only one parameter and the schema provides no description, so the description must clarify it. Saying 'fund_id: The fund's ID' adds a minimal semantic pointer, but it is largely tautological and does not explain where the ID comes from or how it is used.
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 verb and resource: 'Get detailed info for a specific hedge fund, including its roster.' It clearly distinguishes this from listing tools like list_funds by emphasizing 'specific' and by naming the roster contents.
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 usage: call this when you need details for one fund and have a fund_id. It does not explicitly compare against siblings such as list_funds or get_active_fund, nor does it state when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.
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.