swop_lookup_identityResolve an exact swop.id handle (e.g. "travis.swop.id") to its profile: display name, avatar, and public EVM/Solana wallet addresses. Case-insensitive exact match; use swop_search_identities for fuzzy search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Exact swop.id handle, e.g. "travis.swop.id" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: case-insensitive exact matching and the set of returned fields. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior and output are front-loaded, and the alternative tool is mentioned without extra 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, read-only lookup tool with a fully documented schema and clear sibling distinction, the description covers the essential behavior and return fields. No critical missing context for an agent to invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the handle parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the parameter with an example but does not add significant new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Resolve'), the resource (an exact swop.id handle), and the result (profile details with display name, avatar, and wallet addresses). It also distinguishes itself from swop_search_identities by emphasizing exact match versus fuzzy search.
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 explicitly provides usage guidance: it is for exact matches and directs the agent to use swop_search_identities for fuzzy search. This gives clear when-to-use/alternative routing.
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.