Call this to fetch recent public executed trades / trade tape (prices, sizes, timestamps) on Kalshi or Polymarket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| platform | No | kalshi | |
| ticker_or_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns recent public trades with prices, sizes, and timestamps. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'recent' (time window), the behavior of the limit parameter, or the valid values for platform. The lack of enum definitions in the schema compounds this gap.
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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action. However, its brevity leads to missing parameter and usage context. It earns every word but could benefit from a second sentence on parameters.
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 has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no enum constraints, the description is insufficient to fully guide the agent. It omits parameter details, valid platform values, and the behavior of the 'limit' field. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description remains incomplete.
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 description adds no information about the three parameters (limit, platform, ticker_or_token). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must infer from parameter names alone. The description does not explain defaults, valid values, or how to use them for filtering.
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 action (fetch), the resource (recent public executed trades/trade tape), and the data types included (prices, sizes, timestamps). It also specifies the supported platforms (Kalshi or Polymarket), distinguishing it from sibling tools like order book or price history.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when should the agent use foresea_orderbook instead?). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
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.
