Wrap the funder Safe's USDC.e into Polymarket's pUSD, platform-relayed so the user pays no gas. Omit amount_base_units to wrap the full balance. Auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credential_id | Yes | stored credential id (uuid) | |
| amount_base_units | No | optional amount in base units, decimal string |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral burden. It discloses that auth is required and that the operation is platform-relayed (no gas to user), but doesn't mention side effects, failure modes, or what happens to the wrapped funds. Some behavioral context is given, but not comprehensive.
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 two sentences, starts with the verb and resource, and includes essential tips (full balance, auth). No fluff, every word earns its place.
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 simple wrap operation, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how to use the optional amount, and the auth requirement. It lacks mention of return value or error handling, but with no output schema, it could be slightly more complete. Still, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.
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% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that omitting amount_base_units wraps the full balance, which clarifies the optional parameter's semantics. This extra guidance warrants a 4.
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 action (wrap) and the specific resource (funder Safe's USDC.e into Polymarket's pUSD). It also mentions platform-relaying and no gas, distinguishing it from sibling tools like topup_balance or get_balance. The verb and resource are unique and specific.
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?
Provides a clear usage hint: 'Omit amount_base_units to wrap the full balance' and notes 'Auth required.' It doesn't explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives, but the context (platform-relayed, no gas) implies when it's preferable. Lacks direct comparison to siblings, but enough guidance for correct invocation.
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.