Get closed trade history for a fund's roster bots.
Args:
fund_id: The fund's ID.
limit: Max trades to return (default 50).
offset: Pagination offset.
Returns a JSON array of closed trades.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| 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 provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns a JSON array of closed trades, which provides some transparency about the output. However, it does not mention any side effects, error handling, ordering guarantees, or rate limits. For a read-only operation this is acceptable but not thorough, meriting a 3.
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 succinct and well-organized: a one-line purpose, then a compact parameter list, then a return type. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff. The key information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The tool is a simple paginated list; the description explains the resource (closed trades for a fund), parameters, and return type. Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail the return structure beyond stating it is a JSON array. No obvious missing context for a straightforward read operation, though it could mention default pagination behavior or ordering, which is not specified.
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?
The schema provides only types and defaults with no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining each parameter: fund_id is the fund's ID, limit is max trades (default 50), offset is pagination offset. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema and fully covers all parameters, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action: 'Get closed trade history for a fund's roster bots.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fund_positions or get_fund_analytics. The tool's scope is precise, leaving no ambiguity about what data it retrieves.
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 when to use this tool (when you need closed trades for a fund) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no contrast with similar get_* tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate context. This is adequate but leaves room for explicit routing guidance.
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.