Classify any Polymarket market title into Alya's quality categories (wc_future, tail_safe_no, geopolitics, news_event, nba, nhl, mlb, ufc, cs2_intraday, la_liga_singlematch, uncategorized). Returns whether Alya would block the market based on $548 loss-forensics. Use this to pre-screen any market before placing real money.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| titles | Yes | 1..50 market titles to categorize |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool also returns a blocking decision based on '$548 loss-forensics', which is significant behavioral detail beyond just categorization.
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 sentences: first states core purpose and categories, second adds usage guidance and extra behavioral detail. No wasted words.
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 tool with a single simple parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. It doesn't detail the return format, but the output is likely straightforward.
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%, but the description adds the constraint '1..50 market titles', which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand the expected range of input sizes.
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 the tool classifies Polymarket market titles into specific quality categories. It uses a specific verb ('classify') and resource ('Polymarket market title'), and the list of categories distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_signals or polymarket_edge.
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 explicitly says 'Use this to pre-screen any market before placing real money', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but no obvious sibling overlaps.
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 distinct purposes and clear descriptions, but there is some potential confusion among the four Polymarket-related tools (categorize, edge, signals, top_traders) and among the multiple 'alya_' prefixed tools that query different data sources.
Naming patterns are mixed: some tools use 'alya_' prefix, others use action-based names like 'batch_calibrate' or 'image_gen', and YouTube tools all start with 'youtube_'. The inconsistency in prefixes and verb styles makes the set less predictable.
32 tools is high for an MCP server, and they span a wide, unrelated set of domains (Polymarket, YouTube, gemology, weather, earthquakes, health, celebrity, etc.), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.
Each domain has incomplete coverage: Polymarket lacks trade execution, YouTube automation depends on external OAuth, health tools only offer diagnosis and drug interactions without follow-up, and other domains have minimal tooling. The server feels like a collection of one-off features rather than a coherent surface.