Pre-flight policy check: would this spend be allowed under the wallet's policy right now? Auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | token symbol, e.g. USDC | |
| wallet | Yes | wallet address | |
| amount_usd | Yes | spend amount in USD, decimal string | |
| counterparty | No | optional counterparty address to screen |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a non-mutating policy check ('would this spend be allowed'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose auth method details, whether it checks live policy vs. simulated, or any side effects of the check. Adequate but not rich.
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, highly scannable, front-loaded with critical info. The 'Auth required' is a useful note, and the rhetorical question format is efficient. Zero wasted words.
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 read-only pre-flight check with 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does, infers non-mutation, and the 'Auth required' hints at permission context. A small gap is not detailing what the response contains, but it's not critical for a check tool.
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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description itself adds little param-specific detail beyond schema, but the baseline of 3 applies since schema covers everything.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'check' with clear resource 'spend' and includes helpful context ('Pre-flight policy check'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_pm_order by focusing on policy check for spend under wallet policy.
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?
Description implies usage as a pre-flight validation step, and the 'Auth required' note gives context. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the pre-flight framing makes when-to-use clear. Slight deduction for not explicitly excluding when to not use.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Within the prediction market domain, prepare vs create vs submit are clearly differentiated by signing model (client-signed vs server-signed). Even similar-sounding tools like check_spend and check_pm_order are unambiguously scoped to general spending vs PM orders, and their descriptions reinforce the boundary.
All 47 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. Verbs like get, list, create, cancel, revoke, prepare, submit, set, remove, and poll are used uniformly. There is no mixing of styles or vague verbs like 'process' or 'run', making the surface highly predictable.
47 tools is significantly above the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the server covers a broad and complex domain (prediction markets, policy, delegations), the sheer count makes the surface heavy and potentially overwhelming. Some consolidation (e.g., merging related PM order operations) could reduce cognitive load without sacrificing functionality.
The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage across all major subdomains: authentication, policy versioning, delegation CRUD (prepare/confirm/list/get/revoke/renew), intent management, PM order flow (create/cancel/list/prepare/submit/check), credential management (store/list/revoke), balance and top-up operations, and account-level actions (export, offboard, panic). Minor omissions exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to view a single credential in detail or update an intent), but agents can work around these with existing tools.