Update allocation weights for bots in a fund's roster.
Args:
user_id: The user's ID (must own the fund).
fund_id: The fund's ID.
weights: A dict mapping bot_id to new weight percentage (e.g.
{"momentum_eth_v3": 15.0, "scalper_btc_v2": 20.0}).
Returns success or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fund_id | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| weights | 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 only mentions that the user must own the fund and that it 'Returns success or error.' It does not explain whether the update replaces existing weights, validates that weights sum to 100, or has other side effects.
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 fairly concise and well-structured, with Args and Returns sections. It avoids excessive verbosity, though the Args block repeats parameter names that are already in the schema.
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 description covers the core parameters and the return result, and an output schema exists. However, it omits important operational context such as whether weights are merged or replaced, whether there are constraints on the weights, and what error conditions beyond ownership look like.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful meaning for all three parameters, especially for 'weights' with an example mapping bot_id to weight percentage. The 'must own the fund' note adds important context to user_id.
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 states a specific action ('Update allocation weights') and a specific resource ('bots in a fund's roster'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like update_fund_caps, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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 the tool is used to change bot weight allocations and gives a prerequisite ('user_id must own the fund'), but it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus alternatives like swap_bot_in_fund or update_fund_caps.
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.