Fetch a single Polymarket market by id (market_id) or by slug. Provide exactly one of market_id or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Crypto asset. Keyless/demo and Free plans are BTC-only; all 7 require a paid plan. | btc |
| slug | No | Market slug (alternative to market_id). | |
| market_id | No | Market id from polymarket_search_markets. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description only restates the parameter options and does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, rate limits). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal context.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action. Every word is essential and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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?
Given the low complexity of the tool (fetch a single market) and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate for the task. It does not describe the return format, but the context of sibling tools and the platform knowledge may compensate. It could be slightly improved by noting typical usage.
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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds value by explicitly stating the mutual exclusivity requirement ('Provide exactly one of market_id or slug'), which is not encoded in 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 clearly states 'Fetch a single Polymarket market by id (market_id) or by slug', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_search_markets which return multiple results.
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 provides clear guidance by stating 'Provide exactly one of market_id or slug', which tells the agent when to use each parameter. It implies the tool is for fetching a specific market, but does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose, clearly separated by venue prefix (kalshi_, limitless_, polymarket_) and action (get_orderbook, get_snapshots, search_markets). The screener and whoami tools are unique and not overlapping with any other tool.
Most tools follow the venue_verb_noun pattern (e.g., kalshi_get_orderbook, polymarket_get_snapshots). However, polymarket_all_markets uses 'all' instead of a verb, and screener/whoami deviate entirely from the pattern, causing minor inconsistency.
With 12 tools covering three venues plus cross-venue and session info, the count is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear role without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The tool surface covers the core data retrieval operations (orderbook, snapshots, search, single market) for all venues. Missing are update/delete operations but those are outside the data provider scope. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated 'get_market' for Kalshi and Limitless, though search_markets provides similar info.
