Change active trading skill overlay for this user. Immediately affects all subsequent get_signals calls and downstream channels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_id | Yes | trading_skills.id (e.g. 'aggressive_v0'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the change is immediate and affects downstream channels, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the change is reversible, if it overrides existing settings, or any permission requirements, leaving gaps.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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 setter, the description covers the core function and its immediate consequences. It lacks details about error conditions or prerequisites, but given the simplicity and single parameter, it is nearly complete.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter skill_id, including a description and example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'change' and the resource 'active trading skill overlay for this user', which distinguishes it from sibling getters. It 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 explains the immediate effect on subsequent get_signals calls, providing clear context for when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the sibling set of getters makes the use case obvious.
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.
Execution and settings tools are clearly separated, but there is a dense cluster of analytical getters (get_view, get_reading, get_signals, get_assembly) that all return market verdicts and coordinates; their boundaries are only clear after reading the long descriptions. get_market_state versus get_state_timeline is cleaner, but the overlap among the analysis-verdict tools could still cause misselection.
All tools share the decker_ prefix and a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_* for reads, place_order/close_position/update_protective_stops/set_skill_overlay/validate_intent for actions). There is no mixing of naming conventions or vague generic verbs.
Thirteen tools is within the ideal well-scoped range for an execution-plus-analysis server. Each tool maps to a distinct responsibility (state reading, timeline history, signals, execution, position management, user settings, pre-trade validation), so none feels like filler.
The lifecycle is well covered: validate_intent → place_order → get_positions → update_protective_stops → close_position, with signal/analysis and skill-overlay tools around it. Minor gaps like a dedicated account-balance or full order-history tool are absent, but the execution engine handles caps server-side and closed round-trips are included in get_positions.