List all strategies created by a user.
Args:
user_id: The creator's user ID.
Returns JSON array of strategies with: id, bot_id, name, domain,
status, declared_sl_bps, declared_tp_bps, and created_at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly says the tool returns a JSON array and lists all returned fields, which tells an agent what to expect. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read, though it does not mention authorization, ordering, or edge cases.
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 definition is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, an Args line, and a Returns line. The return-field list adds a little redundancy given the output schema exists, but it is still brief and scannable.
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 one-parameter listing tool, the description covers the action, argument meaning, and return shape. It omits alternative routing and edge-case behavior, but nothing essential is missing for calling 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 input schema only provides the property name and type string, so the description is the sole source of meaning. 'user_id: The creator's user ID' fully conveys the parameter's role. It could go further with format guidance, but for a single required parameter this is sufficient.
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 first sentence, 'List all strategies created by a user,' uses a specific verb and resource and makes the scope (per creator user_id) explicit. This cleanly differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_bots and list_funds.
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 establishes that the tool is appropriate for listing strategies by creator and requires a user_id, which is clear context. However, it does not state when to prefer an alternative such as get_strategy_report, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites beyond the user_id argument.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but browse_fund_marketplace and get_marketplace_bots are easy to confuse since both surface marketplace bots with performance metrics. The detailed descriptions clarify their different intents, though the naming does not strongly reinforce the distinction.
The set almost uniformly uses snake_case verb_noun names like create_fund, list_funds, and update_fund_weights. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as get_marketplace_bots returning a list instead of a single item and browse_fund_marketplace using a different pattern from the other marketplace tools.
At 26 tools, the server is on the heavy side and above the typical well-scoped range. The broad domain of funds, strategies, marketplaces, and market data helps justify the count, but several overlapping marketplace/list tools inflate the surface and could be consolidated.
The set covers the core fund lifecycle, roster management, strategy validation/deployment, marketplace browsing, and market data reads quite thoroughly. Minor gaps remain, such as no update/delete operations for strategies and no direct tool for publishing a bot to the marketplace, but these are workable within the existing workflow.