Remove a bot from a fund's roster (triggers wind-down of its positions).
Args:
user_id: The user's ID (must own the fund).
fund_id: The fund's ID.
bot_id: The bot to remove.
reason: Optional reason for removal.
Returns success or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bot_id | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| fund_id | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the non-obvious consequence of triggering wind-down of the bot's positions and requires fund ownership. It stops short of stating whether the removal is irreversible or what other positions or fund settings may be affected as a cascade.
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-loaded with the core purpose, and the Args block is easy to scan. The final "Returns success or error" line is redundant given that an output schema exists, but it does not add meaningful bloat.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, side effect, ownership constraint, and optional parameter. The output schema appears to handle return shape, so the description is reasonably complete. It lacks guidance on failure modes and alternatives, but the agent has enough to invoke correctly in the primary use case.
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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args list is necessary and does add meaning: user_id is tied to fund ownership, reason is marked optional, and bot_id is identified as the removal target. However, fund_id is just restated as "The fund's ID" and bot_id adds only minimal semantic value beyond its name.
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: "Remove a bot from a fund's roster," and adds the important side effect of triggering wind-down of positions. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like add_bot_to_fund and swap_bot_in_fund without requiring the agent to infer from the name alone.
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 usage context is implied by the action and the ownership prerequisite is noted via "must own the fund." However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or which alternatives (e.g., swap_bot_in_fund for replacement, close_fund for closing the whole fund) should be preferred in other scenarios.
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.