Update a position: current price, edge, size, status (open→closed). Use to mark positions as closed or update tracking data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edge | No | Current edge in cents | |
| size | No | Updated size | |
| apiKey | Yes | SimpleFunctions API key. Get one at https://simplefunctions.dev/dashboard/keys | |
| status | No | open or closed | |
| thesisId | Yes | Thesis ID | |
| rationale | No | Updated rationale | |
| positionId | Yes | Position ID | |
| currentPrice | No | Current market price in cents |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the status transition and tracking data updates, but does not disclose whether partial updates are supported, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects occur (e.g., when closing a position). This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 8 parameters.
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 two concise sentences that state the purpose and a usage scenario. It contains no filler or redundant details, and key information is front-loaded.
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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain partial-update semantics (which params are optional), what happens on close, or what the response looks like. The sibling close_position exists but is not referenced, creating a completeness gap.
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 input schema contains descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already documents each field. The description adds a brief mention of 'current price, edge, size, status' but does not enrich understanding beyond listing some parameter names, which is already in the schema. Baseline 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 tool updates a position and lists the specific fields (price, edge, size, status). It also mentions marking positions as closed, which distinguishes it from add_position. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from close_position, a sibling tool with overlapping functionality.
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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to mark positions as closed or update tracking data.' However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or discuss the alternative close_position tool, which could lead to misuse.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple market query tools (scan_markets, screen_markets, get_market_detail, get_market_diff, get_market_history, inspect_ticker) and legislative tools (legislation, get_legislation, list_legislation, query_gov). Aliases like get_heartbeat_config/get_heartbeat_status and explore_public/explore_theses add further confusion. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool without deeply reading each description.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_), but there are notable deviations: 'legislation' lacks the 'get_' prefix, 'stt' and 'tts' are acronyms, 'monitor_the_situation' is a full phrase, and 'x_account/x_news/x_volume' use a non-standard prefix. The overall style is readable, but the mixed conventions reduce predictability.
108 tools is extreme for any server, even one covering prediction markets, trading, portfolio management, forum, skills, and speech. The massive surface area overwhelms agents and makes the server feel more like a platform than a coherent toolkit. This many tools inevitably leads to redundancy and maintenance burden.
The server covers an impressively broad domain: market data, thesis management, intents, strategies, positions, portfolio, forum, skills, legislative and economic queries, and audio/visual processing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete for skills/theses, no update for some portfolio items) but core workflows are well-supported. Overall lifecycle coverage for most entities is strong.
