swop_get_price_historyHistorical price series for one outcome token. Interval controls the window (e.g. "1d", "1w", "1m", "max"); fidelity is the candle resolution in minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenId | Yes | CLOB token id | |
| fidelity | No | Candle resolution in minutes, default 30 | |
| interval | No | Window: 1h, 6h, 1d, 1w, 1m, max (default max) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope around single-token historical candles, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or output shape. 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?
The description is two focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second efficiently explains the two non-obvious parameters.
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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and supporting annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not explicitly define the shape of the returned candle series, though 'price series' and 'candle resolution' make it inferable.
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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description's explanation of interval and fidelity mostly restates the schema ('Candle resolution in minutes', window values), adding little new semantic meaning.
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 returns a 'Historical price series for one outcome token,' which identifies the specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_orderbook, which serve different data needs.
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 implies through 'Historical price series' that this tool is for historical candle data rather than current prices, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. The usage context is inferable but not directly guided.
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.