Noemic

Save a bet proposal

propose_bet

Create an unpublished draft when the user wants to formalize a concrete falsifiable forecast or disagreement. The model may suggest this naturally, but must not silently persist a passing remark. An exact source must be linked by its existing sourceRecordId; never invent an ID, quote, or provenance. This never publishes, invites, accepts, charges, escrows, or binds anyone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`side`	Yes	The outcome or side the signed-in user proposes to take.
`title`	Yes
`voidRules`	Yes	The exact conditions under which the offer is void.
`counterSide`	Yes	The compatible opposing side offered to a counterparty.
`proposition`	Yes	The concrete proposition that will be resolved.
`resolutionAt`	Yes	The resolution time as ISO 8601 with a timezone offset.
`sessionToken`	Yes	The private session token returned by finish_sign_in. Reuse it privately and never show it to the user.
`stakeDollars`	No	Optional proposed stake in US dollars. It is draft text only; Noemic does not charge or hold it.
`sourceRecordId`	No	An existing Noemic source record containing the literal source and provenance. Omit when none exists; never fabricate it or substitute a paraphrase.
`resolutionRules`	Yes	The exact rule for deciding the outcome.
`resolverAdapter`	No	The resolver class selected before approval. Defaults to Noemic house review; naming a class does not connect an external service.
`resolutionSource`	Yes	The authoritative source used to determine the outcome.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical non-effects: 'never publishes, invites, accepts, charges, escrows, or binds anyone.' It also warns against inventing source IDs or quotes, going beyond the basic readOnlyHint=false annotation. This is valuable behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences with no filler. The main action, usage trigger, and key constraints are all front-loaded and concise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, when to use, and non-effects. The schema carries parameter details. A minor gap is that the description does not mention what the call returns or how success is signaled, but the overall context is strong.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 92%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description's mention of sourceRecordId constraints ('never invent an ID') is already present in the schema, and no other parameter-level details are added.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Create an unpublished draft,' a clear verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it formalizes a falsifiable forecast or disagreement, not a search or auth operation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants to formalize a concrete falsifiable forecast or disagreement.' It also gives a negative directive: 'must not silently persist a passing remark.' While no alternatives are named, the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so the guidance is unambiguous.

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

All Noemic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: sign-in has separate start/finish steps, explain_noemic is informational, find_counterparties and find_relevant_bets differ by target (people vs. offers), and propose_bet creates a draft. There is no ambiguity between any two tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (begin_sign_in, find_counterparties, find_relevant_bets, propose_bet, finish_sign_in). The verb is always first and descriptive, with only explain_noemic using a proper noun as the object, but this does not break the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: auth flow, explanation, two search functions, and proposal creation. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core lifecycle of signing in, understanding the network, finding matches, and proposing bets. Minor gaps exist like no listing or cancelling drafts and no sign-out, but these are not critical for the stated no-custody, read-only discovery focus.

Resources

Need Help?