Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Prediction Markets Quant

by com.predictionmarketspicks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Start/Sit by the Market — what Kalshi prices each player at

start_sit
Read-only

Use for "should I start Nacua or Adams" and "who does the market like more this week". For 2–4 players: the median Kalshi is pricing for each stat (read off his own strike ladder) and his anytime-TD price, compared on the stats they share. Market prices only — the call stays yours; Pro adds our weekly projection. Example: {"players": ["Puka Nacua", "Davante Adams"]} or {"players": "Nacua, Adams"}; more than four names compares the first four.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "start_sit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playersNoTwo to four player names, e.g. ["Puka Nacua", "Davante Adams"] or "Nacua, Adams".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses that prices are read off each player's own strike ladder as a median, that comparison happens only on shared stats, and that output is market prices with no recommendation. The 'Pro adds our weekly projection' note usefully signals a tier limitation. Return format is not described, but no output schema exists to cover it.

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?

Two dense sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the user phrasing that should trigger the tool, then the payload, then the guardrails. The example duplication with the schema is the only minor redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single optional parameter with no output schema, the description covers trigger, input shape, output contents, comparison logic, and the boundary of what it will not do. Nothing material needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot express: that the string form is a comma-separated list and that more than four names silently compares only the first four. That truncation behavior is genuine added value rather than a restatement.

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?

The description states a specific resource (median Kalshi pricing per stat plus anytime-TD price for each player) and anchors it to real questions like "should I start Nacua or Adams". It distinguishes itself by being market-price based rather than projection based, though it never names compare_players, which could plausibly serve the same intent.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit trigger questions and constraints (2–4 players, more than four truncates to the first four), and clarifies 'the call stays yours' so the agent knows it is not a decision engine. It stops short of naming an alternative tool when the user wants actual projections, referring only to 'Pro'.

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

All Prediction Markets Quant toolsInspect
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