Calldata to swap the Polymarket funder Safe's owner to a new EOA — the owner executes it outside MCP (this server cannot sign). Auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | credential id (uuid) | |
| new_owner | Yes | the replacement owner address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description states the tool only creates calldata and cannot sign, and mentions auth requirement, which is transparent about its limitations and behavior.
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?
Description is brief and to the point, with no unnecessary 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?
Explains the purpose, the execution context, and auth; without output schema, it conveys that it returns calldata. Adequate for a generation tool, though could specify return format.
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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and new_owner); description adds no additional nuance, so baseline of 3.
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?
Clearly states it generates calldata for swapping the funder Safe's owner to a new EOA, distinguishing it from other tools like prepare_delegation or prepare_pm_order.
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?
Mentions that the owner executes it outside MCP and server cannot sign, implying when to use it (to generate calldata for owner swap). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state prerequisites.
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.