swop_update_my_smartsiteUpdate the display name and/or bio of the linked account's SmartSite (the primary one unless smartsiteId is given). Only these two fields are editable here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bio | No | New bio text | |
| name | No | New display name | |
| smartsiteId | No | Specific SmartSite id (default: primary) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context: it targets the linked account's primary SmartSite by default and says only two fields are editable, clarifying limited impact.
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 terse sentences carry the action, target, default selection, and field limitation with no redundancy. Every clause 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 three-optional-param update with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete: it defines what is updated, on which SmartSite, and which fields. A small gap is that it does not explicitly require at least one of name or bio despite all params being optional in the schema.
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% and each parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that name and bio are the editable fields and implies at least one may be provided, but it adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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 names a specific action (update), a specific resource (linked account's SmartSite), and the exact editable fields (display name and/or bio). It also distinguishes itself by narrowing scope to only these two fields, which is clear against the read/search-heavy sibling list.
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 states the applicable context: the linked account's primary SmartSite unless smartsiteId is given, and it explicitly restricts edits to name/bio. It does not name alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use rule, but no sibling performs a comparable SmartSite update, so the context is sufficient.
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.