Pause a strategy. Positions stay open; no more orders until resumed.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>",
"walletId": "<walletId>"
},
"name": "pause_strategy"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| walletId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the most important trait: open positions are preserved and new orders are blocked. It omits prerequisites (wallet permissions, strategy state requirements), what happens to already-resting orders, and whether the action is idempotent or how it is undone beyond 'resumed'.
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 short sentences with the action stated first and the critical side effect second; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 two-parameter state-transition tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential semantics of what actually changes. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, which is left entirely undocumented.
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% for both required parameters, so the description should explain what 'id' and 'walletId' refer to. It provides no parameter information at all, leaving the agent to guess whether id is a strategy id and why a wallet must be supplied alongside it.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Pause a strategy') and its second clause implicitly separates it from destructive siblings like stop_strategy by noting positions stay open. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
'No more orders until resumed' implies the pause is temporary and reversible, hinting at when this is preferable to stop_strategy or resume_strategy. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.
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.