Create a conversion or gas_topup intent; the executor pipeline plans and fills it under policy. Auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| venues | No | optional venue override | |
| wallet | Yes | wallet address | |
| buy_token | Yes | ERC-20 address being bought | |
| sell_token | Yes | ERC-20 address being sold | |
| sell_amount | Yes | base units, decimal string | |
| max_slippage_bps | No | optional per-intent slippage cap |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It notes 'Auth required' and mentions the executor pipeline planning and filling, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous.
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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant text. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral note (auth) without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
The description lacks essential context such as return values (since there is no output schema), error handling, or any details about what happens after the intent is created. It does not explain the 'executor pipeline' outcome or provide enough information for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
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 covers 86% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds limited extra meaning by naming 'conversion' and 'gas_topup' which align with the kind enum. It does not elaborate on how parameters interact or any additional constraints beyond what the schema already states.
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's function: 'Create a conversion or gas_topup intent.' It names the two specific intent kinds and adds context about the executor pipeline, making it distinct from other create operations like create_pm_order or prepare_delegation.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios. The phrase 'under policy' hints at a constraint but lacks specific usage criteria.
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.