Call this to fetch the top profitable prediction market trader leaderboard and rankings from Polymarket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('fetch'), which is appropriate. However, it does not clarify what 'top profitable' means, how rankings are determined, whether data is real-time, or if there are limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits). The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation safety net.
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 a single, 14-word sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. It conveys the core action without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter guidance without losing conciseness.
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 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is partially complete. The output schema likely documents return values, so that omission is acceptable. However, the description lacks context about when this leaderboard is useful relative to siblings, and it does not explain the 'limit' parameter. The completeness is adequate for a straightforward fetch but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the single parameter 'limit' (optional, default 20). The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's purpose and behavior.
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 fetches 'the top profitable prediction market trader leaderboard and rankings from Polymarket.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like foresea_analyze_market (analyzes individual markets) and foresea_scan_markets (searches markets). The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use foresea_scan_markets for market discovery or foresea_analyze_market for deep analysis. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context given. The description simply says 'Call this to fetch...' without any decision-making support.
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.
Some tools have overlapping purposes: foresea_edge_board and foresea_scan_markets both return markets ranked by model-vs-market edge, and foresea_forecast vs foresea_debate_market both provide probabilities for a question. Descriptions help differentiate (specific vs. broad, quick vs. deep) but the boundaries are not always clear.
All tools share the 'foresea_' prefix and use lowercase with underscores, which provides consistency. However, the remainder mixes verb-noun phrases (analyze_market, scan_markets) with bare nouns (orderbook, price_history) and compound nouns (market_leaderboard, polymarket_meta), creating minor stylistic inconsistency.
17 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but the server covers a broad domain (forecasting, market analysis, data feeds, portfolio optimization, track record). A couple of tools are redundant (edge_board vs scan_markets) and could be consolidated, but overall the count is reasonable.
The tool set covers the core analytics workflow: general forecasting, specific market analysis, opportunity scanning, market data (quotes, orderbook, history, trades), portfolio allocation, and performance evaluation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for detailed market rules or user portfolio tracking), but these are likely outside the intended scope.
