prediction_marketsExperimental (outside the core SEC path; not covered by the published accuracy eval, may change or be withdrawn): Top-volume Polymarket markets with implied probabilities, optionally filtered by a question substring. Costs $0.01 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Substring filter. | |
| limit | No | Markets to return. Default 10. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable information: it explicitly states the experimental status, potential for change or withdrawal, and the cost of $0.01 per call. These are behavioral traits not present in the annotations, enhancing transparency.
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 a single coherent sentence plus a short cost note. The experimental warning is placed at the front, which is useful for setting expectations. It is concise without being terse, and every sentence adds value (experimental status, core function, cost). Structure is logical.
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?
With two simple optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and cost. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., list of objects with market names and probabilities), which an agent might need to correctly interpret results. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should compensate more; the mention of 'implied probabilities' hints at output but is insufficient for full completeness.
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% — both parameters 'q' and 'limit' are described in the schema ('Substring filter' and 'Markets to return. Default 10.'). The description only mentions 'optionally filtered by a question substring', which redundantly restates the 'q' parameter. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as returning top-volume Polymarket markets with implied probabilities, optionally filtered by a question substring. It is specific about the resource (Prediction markets) and the function, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools which focus on SEC filings and other financial data. The experimental caveat does not obscure the purpose.
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 gives context that this is experimental and outside the core SEC path, which implies it is not recommended for critical workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention any other tool as an alternative. The 'experimental' note is a caution, but the description lacks direct usage guidance.
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.
Most tools have clearly written descriptions, but several pairs overlap semantically: token_price/token_report, latest_filings/recent_filings, and institutional_holdings/who_holds/activist_stakes all require careful reading to pick the right one. The overlap is not severe enough for a 2, but it is still more than the occasional confusion.
Names are consistently snake_case and mostly descriptive, but the set does not follow one naming convention. It mixes noun phrases (crop_data, token_report, insider_trades) with verb phrases (lookup_company, compare_filings, verify_financial_claim), and pairs like latest_filings/recent_filings create avoidable confusion.
31 tools is too many for what is nominally an SEC Filings server, and the scope sprawls into unrelated domains such as EVM gas, tokens, prediction markets, crop data, and x402 auditing. The count does not feel earned by a coherent workflow; it feels like an uncurated bundle of endpoints.
The SEC filing workflow is reasonably covered: company lookup, search, latest/recent filings, section extraction, 8-K events, comparisons, ownership filings, and XBRL financial checks are all present. However, there is no full-filing retrieval endpoint, no deep company financial history beyond a single concept, and many non-SEC subdomains are only one-off data points, so the overall surface is still incomplete.