List all hedge funds for the authenticated user (active + closed).
Returns a JSON array of fund objects with: id, fund_name, is_active,
inception_date, initial_capital, current_aum, router_preset,
aggression_mode, total_pnl_usd, total_pnl_bps, and roster summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / user_idRemoved value: -{
- "title": "User Id",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "user_id"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It states the return type (JSON array) and enumerates the fields, which gives useful behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose side effects (though likely read-only), authentication requirements beyond 'authenticated user', or potential limitations like pagination. This is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return format is summarized in the second. Every word contributes to clarity, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 no-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete. It specifies the scope (active + closed) and enumerates the exact fields returned, which is helpful given the output schema is not shown. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a basic list operation this is a minor gap. The context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The input schema is trivially covered (100%), and the description adds no parameter-specific information. Per calibration, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.
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 (list), the resource (all hedge funds), and the scope (authenticated user, active + closed). It distinguishes from siblings like get_fund (single fund) and get_active_fund (active only) by explicitly saying 'all' and 'active + closed'. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.
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 for obtaining the complete list of funds, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools such as get_fund and get_active_fund exist, but no exclusions or routing guidance is provided. The context is somewhat self-evident, but it relies on the agent to infer the distinction.
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.