FortFi Treasury MCP

propose_polymarket_buy

Propose buying Polymarket outcome shares, then call confirm_proposal. Requires Polygon wallet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "conditionId": "<conditionId>",
      "outcomeIndex": "<outcomeIndex>",
      "price": "<price>",
      "sizeDisplay": "<sizeDisplay>"
    },
    "name": "propose_polymarket_buy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`price`	Yes	Limit price 0-1 (e.g. 0.52)
`conditionId`	Yes	Market condition id from list_polymarket_markets
`sizeDisplay`	Yes	Share count (e.g. 10)
`fromWalletId`	No
`outcomeIndex`	Yes	0-based outcome index
`fromAccountQuery`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses the key trait that this is a two-phase flow requiring a follow-up confirm_proposal call, plus the Polygon wallet prerequisite, but says nothing about whether funds are committed at propose time, expiry, approval requirements, or how the proposal can be rejected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence carries distinct information. It is perhaps too terse for the complexity of a 6-parameter trading proposal, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a proposal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and wallet prerequisite but leaves significant holes: two undocumented parameters, no mention of allowance/approval flow despite a sibling check_trade_allowance existing, and no hint about what the proposal object contains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 67% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. 'fromWalletId' and 'fromAccountQuery' are undocumented in both schema and description, and the description doesn't explain the required conditionId/outcomeIndex/price/sizeDisplay semantics beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Propose buying Polymarket outcome shares'), which pins down both the action and the venue and implicitly separates it from the sell-side sibling. It stops short of naming propose_polymarket_sell or propose_hyperliquid_outcome_order, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'then call confirm_proposal' gives a useful sequencing cue, and 'Requires Polygon wallet' is a real prerequisite. However, it never says when to prefer this over propose_polymarket_sell, whether allowance checks are needed first, or what conditions should stop the agent from calling it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All FortFi Treasury MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?