Close this account for good: revokes every credential, scrubs personal data, retires the account. Irreversible; confirm_wallet_address must be the account's own wallet address, typed exactly. Auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | optional reason, recorded | |
| confirm_wallet_address | Yes | the account's wallet address, typed to confirm |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden. It transparently discloses that the action is irreversible, requires authentication, and has specific effects (revokes credentials, scrubs personal data). The confirmation requirement is also highlighted, which is critical for such a destructive operation.
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 and well-structured, using three sentences to convey purpose, effects, irreversibility, and the confirmation requirement. There is no superfluous information, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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 destructive account-offboarding tool, the description covers essential context: what it does, consequences, irreversibility, and the confirmation safeguard. It does not need to explain return values since no output schema is provided. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the operation and its risks.
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 already describes both parameters, but the description adds crucial nuance: 'confirm_wallet_address must be the account's own wallet address, typed exactly.' This clarifies the validation requirement beyond the schema. The optional 'reason' parameter is not elaborated, but that is acceptable given its optional nature.
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 purpose: 'Close this account for good' and details the consequences (revokes credentials, scrubs data, retires account). It is distinct from other sibling tools, which focus on different actions like canceling orders or managing credentials.
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 implicitly communicates when to use (permanent account closure) and emphasizes the destructive nature ('Irreversible'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.