Resolve an owner EOA to its Polymarket funder Safe candidates. Auth required.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"owner": "<owner>"
},
"name": "resolve_pm_funder"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | owner EOA address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does reveal that auth is required and that the operation resolves an owner to candidates, implying a lookup. However, it does not disclose output format, failure behavior, rate limits, or why 'candidates' exist, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 short sentences convey the core purpose and an important requirement (auth). There is no padding, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but functional. It states the operation and auth need, yet leaves uncertainty about what the returned candidates look like and how the response should be interpreted.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the owner parameter. The description restates the same concept ('owner EOA') without adding detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('owner EOA to its Polymarket funder Safe candidates'), clearly distinguishing it from the many read/list/check sibling tools. It precisely states what the tool accomplishes.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pm_onboarding, get_pm_signer_rotation, or list_pm_credentials. It only mentions auth as a requirement, not the conditions or workflow context.
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.