Fork a published strategy from the x711 Strategy Commons. Costs $0.03 USDC. The original publisher earns $0.02 royalty. Returns a copy of the strategy with your agent_id attached. Browse strategies first at https://x711.io/strategies or GET /api/strategies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategy_id | Yes | UUID of the strategy to fork. Get IDs from GET https://x711.io/api/strategies. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already indicate a mutating operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral specifics: the $0.03 USDC cost, the $0.02 royalty to the original publisher, and the return of a copy with your agent_id attached. This goes beyond the bare annotation flags.
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 five concise sentences, each providing distinct information: the action, cost, royalty, return format, and prerequisite browsing step. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the action, cost, royalty, return value, and how to get the strategy ID. It even includes a human-readable URL. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit statement of the return value, making the tool complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 already fully describes strategy_id as a UUID and provides the API URL for obtaining IDs. The description adds the alternative browsing URL (https://x711.io/strategies), which is a minor supplement. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 opens with 'Fork a published strategy from the x711 Strategy Commons,' which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like x711_strategy_publish. It also states the cost, royalty, and return value, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.
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 clear context by stating that you fork a published strategy and instructs you to browse strategies first via a URL or API to obtain the strategy_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the usage context is well-defined.
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 search tools (web_search, deep_search, data_retrieval) and multiple communication tools (agent_ping, agent_telegram, swarm_broadcast). The descriptions help differentiate, but the boundaries are not always clear.
All tools consistently use the 'x711_' prefix and lowercase_with_underscores format. Submodules like agent, hive, and tx follow predictable patterns. Minor deviations (e.g., x711_ask_clerk) are rare and still descriptive.
With 47 tools, the server is excessively large for a typical MCP service. While it aims to be a comprehensive platform, the high count makes navigation and selection cumbersome for an agent.
The tool set covers a wide range of agent needs: web access, memory, communication, on-chain transactions, code execution, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no agent deletion tool), but overall it is remarkably complete for the stated purpose of an agent platform.