swop_check_predictions_accessCheck whether prediction-market trading is available (geo-restrictions apply in some regions). Call before suggesting trading actions; market DATA tools work everywhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by warning that geo-restrictions apply in some regions, which explains why availability may differ per user. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core check and the key caveat; the second gives the actionable usage context. No redundant phrasing or filler.
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 zero-parameter read-only availability check, the description conveys what the tool does, when to call it, and a key regional behavioral caveat. It does not specify the return format, but with no output schema and a nullary input, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no irrelevant parameter detail.
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 and resource: 'Check whether prediction-market trading is available.' It adds the geo-restriction nuance and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that market DATA tools work everywhere, though it does not name a specific alternative like the strongest examples do.
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?
It explicitly says 'Call before suggesting trading actions,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also contrasts with market DATA tools by stating they work everywhere, implying data tools are the alternative when only data is needed, though it stops short of naming specific siblings.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: search_markets is for discovery while get_event_markets is for a single event's full detail, and lookup_identity/search_identities, get_prices/get_price_history, and send/pay_x402_link are all clearly separated. There is no realistic pair of tools an agent would struggle to choose between.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case, swop_-prefixed, verb-first pattern such as get_*, search_*, create_*, update_*, send, and pay_*. Even slightly longer names like check_predictions_access stay within the same predictable structure.
21 tools is on the higher side, but the server covers several distinct clusters: prediction-market data, account/wallet info, identity resolution, SmartSite commerce, and payments. Each tool has a clear role, so the count is slightly over the ideal range but still reasonable for the apparent scope.
The market data and payment send flows are fairly complete, but lifecycle operations are missing: products can be created and listed but not updated or deleted, swaps are quote-only, and there is no prediction-market order execution tool. These are notable gaps, though they do not block the core send/pay and market-data workflows.