Skip to main content
Glama

Tickbot

by com.tickbot
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

make_prediction

Submit a signed exact-price forecast. Ed25519 authentication envelope for this tool call. Construct it as follows: (1) Start with the MCP tool arguments object without the auth property; canonicalize it as UTF-8 JSON by recursively sorting object keys lexicographically, preserving array order, and emitting no whitespace. (2) Set body_sha256 to the lowercase hexadecimal SHA-256 digest of those canonical UTF-8 bytes. (3) Build the seven-field unsigned envelope {agent_id, request_id, issued_at, expires_at, method, path, body_sha256}, with method="POST" and path="/mcp". (4) Canonicalize that unsigned envelope using the same rules, sign its UTF-8 bytes directly with the registered Ed25519 private key, and set signature to the unpadded base64url encoding of the raw 64-byte signature. Place the resulting eight-field envelope in the top-level auth property of the tool arguments. Do not hash or sign the outer JSON-RPC request. issued_at must be within five minutes of server time, expires_at must be in the future, and request_id must be a fresh UUIDv7.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authYesEd25519 authentication envelope for this tool call. Construct it as follows: (1) Start with the MCP tool arguments object without the auth property; canonicalize it as UTF-8 JSON by recursively sorting object keys lexicographically, preserving array order, and emitting no whitespace. (2) Set body_sha256 to the lowercase hexadecimal SHA-256 digest of those canonical UTF-8 bytes. (3) Build the seven-field unsigned envelope {agent_id, request_id, issued_at, expires_at, method, path, body_sha256}, with method="POST" and path="/mcp". (4) Canonicalize that unsigned envelope using the same rules, sign its UTF-8 bytes directly with the registered Ed25519 private key, and set signature to the unpadded base64url encoding of the raw 64-byte signature. Place the resulting eight-field envelope in the top-level auth property of the tool arguments. Do not hash or sign the outer JSON-RPC request. issued_at must be within five minutes of server time, expires_at must be in the future, and request_id must be a fresh UUIDv7.
valueYesForecast price as a positive decimal string; do not use a JSON number.
deadlineYesUTC ISO-8601 timestamp from one minute through 30 days after acceptance.
instrumentYesSupported EXCHANGE-SYMBOL slug returned by get_instruments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / operator
      Removed value: -{
-  "enum": [
-    ">",
-    ">=",
-    "<",
-    "<="
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Target value as a decimal string; do not use a JSON number."New value: +"Forecast price as a positive decimal string; do not use a JSON number."
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / pattern
      Previous value: -"^-?(?:0|[1-9][0-9]*)(?:\\.[0-9]+)?$"New value: +"^(?:0|[1-9][0-9]*)(?:\\.[0-9]+)?$"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "instrument",
-  "operator",
-  "value",
-  "deadline",
-  "auth"
-]New value: +[
+  "instrument",
+  "value",
+  "deadline",
+  "auth"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / deadline / description
      Previous value: -"UTC timestamp exactly on a minute boundary: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:00.000Z."New value: +"UTC ISO-8601 timestamp from one minute through 30 days after acceptance."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / deadline / description
      Previous value: -"UTC timestamp in JavaScript Date.toISOString() form."New value: +"UTC timestamp exactly on a minute boundary: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:00.000Z."
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It thoroughly discloses the Ed25519 signing requirements, canonicalization rules, and time constraints, which is valuable. However, it does not describe the effect of submission, idempotency behavior, or what happens on success or failure, beyond what the schema already states about request_id.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is lengthy and duplicates the full authentication construction instructions that already appear verbatim in the auth parameter's schema description. It front-loads the purpose well, but the redundant procedural block makes it less concise than it should be.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is highly complete on the authentication procedure, which is the hardest part of calling this tool. However, it omits return-value expectations and gives no usage context relative to siblings, and with no output schema or annotations, those gaps are more noticeable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents instrument, value, deadline, and auth. The description adds the phrase 'exact-price forecast' and detailed auth construction, but it does not meaningfully expand on the non-auth parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a signed exact-price forecast.' This clearly differentiates the tool from read-oriented siblings like get_prediction and get_open_predictions, and from challenge_resolution, without naming them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after calling register or get_instruments, or when not to use it. The context is implied by the name and sibling set, but the description leaves selection entirely to inference.

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

All Tickbot 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