Prediction-market scanner — value vs calibrated probability (crypto/economics/geopolitics/politics/sports/esports/entertainment/weather/ai-tech) [PAID — signal credit or x402 USDC. Cost: 1 signal credit ($1.70-$2.49/credit by pack size). Uncredentialed calls return the 402 payment envelope; set X-API-KEY on the MCP connection or pay x402 out-of-band at GET /api/signal/polymarket.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses paid nature, cost structure, and authentication requirements (X-API-KEY, 402 payment envelope). While no annotations exist, it describes key behavioral aspects like cost and auth, though it doesn't explicitly state side effects or read-only nature.
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?
Description is compact but includes essential categories, cost, and auth info in a structured parenthetical and bracketed format. Slightly verbose due to repeated cost details, but overall efficient.
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?
Lacks explanation of output format or what 'value vs calibrated probability' means in practice. No mention of response structure or example outputs, leaving users uncertain about what they receive beyond a promise of scans.
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?
Input schema is empty with additionalProperties string, providing no parameter definitions. Description offers no parameter details, only defers to the 'instruments' tool for docs, which does not add direct meaning to this tool's parameters.
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?
Description clearly states this is a prediction-market scanner for value vs calibrated probability, listing specific market categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling signal tools by focusing on Polymarket and its unique value metric.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other signal tools. It only mentions calling the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is about parameter discovery, not usage scenarios or 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.
There is significant overlap between scan_* and signal_* tools for the same underlying asset classes, e.g. scan_futures vs signal_futures, scan_racing vs signal_racing, and scan_predmarket vs signal_polymarket. Broader catch-alls like analysis, scan_ask, backtest, and signal_generate also blur the boundary, forcing an agent to parse long pricing details before knowing which tool actually applies.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a clear `scan_` or `signal_` snake_case prefix, which makes the product families easy to recognize. A small set of standalone unprefixed tools — analysis, backtest, instruments, leaderboard, quote, track_record — breaks the pattern, but the overall scheme is still consistent enough to infer.
47 tools is far beyond the practical range for an agent to reason about, even though the server's domain is broad and heavily segmented. Many specialist endpoints could be consolidated under fewer catch-all scanners and signals, but the exposed surface instead forces a large tool-selection decision on every request.
The tool surface covers discovery, cost preview, sample analysis, public track records, leaderboards, broad market scanning, asset-class-specific scanning, sports and event signals, and prediction-market verticals. There are minor gaps in explicit account/credit management and some redundant paths, but for a signal/research service the workflow is largely complete.