Skip to main content
Glama

dMoERA Creator

by io.github.CacheCarti

update_fund_caps

Update a fund's risk caps and settings.

Args:
    user_id: The user's ID (must own the fund).
    fund_id: The fund's ID.
    max_per_bot_pct: Max allocation per single bot (e.g. 40.0 = 40%).
    max_per_domain_pct: Max allocation per domain (e.g. 60.0 = 60%).
    regime_veto_enabled: Whether the regime detector can veto trades.

Only provided fields are updated; others remain unchanged.

Returns success or error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fund_idYes
user_idYes
max_per_bot_pctNo
max_per_domain_pctNo
regime_veto_enabledNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are updated; others remain unchanged'), an ownership requirement, and a return status. It doesn't detail side effects or validation rules, but for a mutation tool this is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose. The Args list, partial-update note, and return statement each earn their place without filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics, authorization, mutation behavior, and return status; the output schema fills in return shape. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over a sibling like update_fund_weights.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the per-parameter explanations are essential and well done. Each argument gets meaningful semantics: examples for percentage fields, a plain-language explanation of regime_veto_enabled, and the note that omitted fields remain unchanged.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action and target: 'Update a fund's risk caps and settings' and enumerates the specific fields involved. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_fund_weights, but the resource and purpose are unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_fund_weights or create_fund. The description does provide a prerequisite ('must own the fund'), but it doesn't mention exclusions or alternative routing, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All dMoERA Creator toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources