Get YOUR audited forecast record on VoxOdds: pending receipts (submitted, awaiting market resolution) and scored results (Brier vs the market price captured when you submitted). Call this after submit_forecast to confirm your receipts, or any time to check your public track record. Same forecaster_id you submit with.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forecaster_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the record includes pending receipts and scored results (Brier vs. market price), and notes it is a public track record. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only status or authentication expectations, which would strengthen transparency.
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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, content, and usage guidance. There is no redundancy or extraneous detail.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the record includes, when to call it, and what parameter to use. It provides enough context for correct invocation without over-explaining.
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?
The schema provides no description for forecaster_id (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by stating 'Same forecaster_id you submit with,' which adds meaning beyond the generic 'Forecaster Id' label. It doesn't detail format or constraints, but for a simple ID parameter this is sufficient.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('YOUR audited forecast record on VoxOdds'), and the content (pending receipts and scored results). It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'YOUR' and 'audited', and by mentioning the Brier scoring approach, which sets it apart from generic tools like get_track_record.
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?
Explicit usage cues are given: 'Call this after submit_forecast to confirm your receipts, or any time to check your public track record.' This clearly states when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.
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 clear, distinct purposes, but a few overlap: get_market_odds and get_world_cup_odds both handle World Cup probability questions, and get_edge_signals and get_research_theses both point to potentially mispriced markets. The descriptions help clarify intent, but the boundaries are not always crisp.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, with verbs like get, list, submit, check, compare, find. Even compound objects like best_price or world_cup_odds fit the pattern cleanly, and no mixed conventions or camelCase appear.
At 14 tools, the server is well-scoped within the 3-15 typical range. Each tool serves a distinct function—odds lookup, market browsing, research, forecasting, and World Cup-specific content—without redundant bloat. The count feels appropriate for the broad domain.
The tool set covers a complete workflow: discovering markets, comparing odds, evaluating bets, finding best prices, getting quotes, submitting forecasts, and reviewing personal and AI track records. The lack of an execution tool is intentional (the server is research-oriented), and the append-only forecast model makes missing update/delete operations a non-issue.
