Trade, orderbook, and volatility data for prediction markets and crypto derivatives.
Return a time-limited download URL for a single OHLCV candles file. Use list_market_data (md_type=candles) first to get the exact slug filename.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| slug | Yes | Exact filename from list_market_data, including extension. | |
| ticker | Yes | Ticker, e.g. btc. | |
| expires | No | URL lifetime in seconds (default 900). | |
| exchange | Yes | Venue: kalshi, polymarket, predict, limitless, deribit, binance. | |
| timeframe | No | Timeframe, e.g. 15 or 1h (omitted for some venues). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| key | No | |
| slug | No | |
| expires_in | No | |
| download_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world safety. The description adds 'time-limited' and the prerequisite workflow, but does not elaborate on error conditions or URL format, which is acceptable given the strong annotations.
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?
Two well-structured sentences convey the essential information without redundancy. The description is efficient and focused.
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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, prerequisite workflow, and a key behavioral aspect (time-limited). No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.
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 complete descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds only minimal extra context (e.g., 'exact' slug), so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already offers.
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 (return a URL), the specific resource (OHLCV candles file), and the distinguishing prerequisite (use list_market_data first). It effectively differentiates from generic download tools.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call list_market_data first to obtain the exact slug, providing clear usage context. Also mentions the 'time-limited' nature of the URL, which is important behavioral guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a time-limited presigned download URL for a full object key (e.g. orderbook/kalshi/btc/15m/2026-05-21/FILE.gz). Use this when you already know the exact key; otherwise prefer list_market_data plus the per-endpoint file tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Full object key including all prefixes and the filename. | |
| expires | No | URL lifetime in seconds (default 900). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| key | No | |
| expires_in | No | |
| download_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds that the URL is 'time-limited' and 'presigned,' indicating the tool does not directly return file contents but a temporary access link. This is valuable behavioral detail not covered by annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.
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 two sentences long, directly to the point, and free of extraneous details. It front-loads the core function (returning a presigned URL) and includes the usage guidance in the second sentence. The example is brief and illustrative without bloating the text.
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 output schema is provided (though not shown in the prompt, it is indicated as present), the description does not need to detail the response format. It fully covers the purpose, parameters, and usage nuance, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call it.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The 'key' parameter is explained as the full object key including prefixes and filename, and 'expires' is described as the URL lifetime in seconds with a default and range constraints (60–3600). The description reinforces the key format with an example. No additional clarification is needed.
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 returns a time-limited presigned download URL for a given S3 object key. It also provides a concrete example (orderbook/kalshi/btc/15m/2026-05-21/FILE.gz), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_candles_file or get_orderbook_file, which retrieve specific data files, and list_market_data, which lists available keys.
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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this when you already know the exact key; otherwise prefer list_market_data plus the per-endpoint file tools.' This gives clear guidance and contrasts with alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a time-limited download URL for a single orderbook file. Use list_market_data first to get the exact slug filename. Set md_type to bbo for best-bid/offer files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| slug | Yes | Exact filename from list_market_data, including extension. | |
| ticker | Yes | Ticker, e.g. btc. | |
| expires | No | URL lifetime in seconds (default 900). | |
| md_type | No | Overrides the prefix; use `bbo` for best-bid/offer files. | |
| exchange | Yes | Venue: kalshi, polymarket, predict, limitless, deribit, binance. | |
| timeframe | No | Timeframe, e.g. 15 or 1h (omitted for some venues). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| key | No | |
| slug | No | |
| expires_in | No | |
| download_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the URL is time-limited, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It correctly implies a read-only operation (returning a URL) and is consistent with the idempotent and open-world hints. No contradictions.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing essential operational steps. No redundant or filler content.
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 presence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool (return a URL), the description covers all necessary operational context: the prerequisite call, the key parameter override, and the result type. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 fully describes all parameters, and the description adds meaningful usage semantics for 'slug' (from list_market_data) and 'md_type' (overrides prefix for bbo). It enhances understanding without conflicting with the schema.
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 returns a time-limited URL for a single orderbook file, and the directive to use list_market_data first distinguishes it from other file-getter siblings like get_trades_file or get_surface_file. The verb 'Return' is specific and unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly instructs to call list_market_data first to obtain the exact slug, and provides a conditional hint for md_type ('Set md_type to `bbo` for best-bid/offer files'). This gives clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the signed-in Convex Lake user's profile, including subscription tier (free or pro).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| profile | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not restate those. It adds context about the return contents (subscription tier), which is useful beyond the annotation. No contradiction is present.
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, compact sentence that conveys exactly what is needed without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.
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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. The description's mention of subscription tier gives the caller a preview of the response. No additional context seems necessary for a tool this simple.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-specific information to add. Per the rubric baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not introduce any confusing parameter-related details.
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 clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('signed-in Convex Lake user's profile'), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tools that deal with market data or files. The mention of subscription tier adds further specificity.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving the current user's profile, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. In a set of sibling tools, explicit guidance on when to choose this tool would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the signed-in user's most recent Convex Lake subscription (status, renewal, cancellation state).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| subscription | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description appropriately focuses on additional behavioral context: it returns the 'most recent' subscription, implying historicity and a possible absence of subscription. It does not cover edge cases like errors, but given the output schema exists and the safety profile is already annotated, this is sufficient.
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, efficiently structured sentence. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning—no redundancy or filler.
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 no parameters, an output schema that covers return values, and annotations that handle safety, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, for whom, and the specific subscription fields. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description correctly does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and there is nothing to add beyond the already-clear schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('signed-in user's most recent Convex Lake subscription'), and even lists the key fields returned (status, renewal, cancellation state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profile or the file/data getters, so an agent can understand its purpose without ambiguity.
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 implies usage context—it returns subscription details for the current signed-in user—but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_profile. Since no confusion is likely given the clear resource name, this is adequate but not fully explicit, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a time-limited download URL for a single volatility surface file. Use list_market_data (md_type=surface) first to get the exact slug filename.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| slug | Yes | Exact filename from list_market_data, including extension. | |
| ticker | Yes | Ticker, e.g. btc. | |
| expires | No | URL lifetime in seconds (default 900). | |
| exchange | Yes | Venue, e.g. deribit or binance. | |
| timeframe | No | Timeframe, if the venue stores one. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| key | No | |
| slug | No | |
| expires_in | No | |
| download_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by noting that the returned URL is time-limited and that a single surface file is returned. It does not exhaustively describe all error or expiry behaviors, but the annotations already cover side-effect 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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary wording. It front-loads the primary purpose and then gives a single actionable prerequisite.
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?
The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does, what input context is needed (exact slug from list_market_data), and what kind of output to expect (time-limited URL). With an output schema present, no further return-value explanation is necessary.
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?
All parameters already have descriptive schema entries, and the description adds extra practical guidance for the slug parameter via list_market_data. This is a useful supplement to the schema, though the meaning of optional parameters like expires and timeframe is left to their existing descriptions.
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 returns a time-limited download URL for a single volatility surface file, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from the broader data-listing workflow by instructing users to call list_market_data first for the correct slug.
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 gives clear usage context by directing users to list_market_data (md_type=surface) before calling this tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_download_url, but the specialization to volatility surface files makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a time-limited download URL for a single executed-trades file. Use list_market_data (md_type=trades) first to get the exact slug filename.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| slug | Yes | Exact filename from list_market_data, including extension. | |
| ticker | Yes | Ticker, e.g. btc. | |
| expires | No | URL lifetime in seconds (default 900). | |
| exchange | Yes | Venue: kalshi, polymarket, predict, limitless, deribit, binance. | |
| timeframe | No | Timeframe, e.g. 5 or 1h (omitted for some venues). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| key | No | |
| slug | No | |
| expires_in | No | |
| download_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the download URL is time-limited, a behavioral trait not covered by the annotations. It also implicitly indicates the operation is read-only and idempotent, consistent with the hints. No contradictions are present.
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, focused sentence that conveys purpose and prerequisite without unnecessary elaboration. Parameter descriptions are also concise and directly relevant. The structure is optimally organized for a tool with six 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 presence of an output schema and the clear description of purpose and prerequisite, the tool definition is complete. The description covers all necessary operational aspects, and the context signals indicate no missing information.
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?
All six parameters are described with meaningful details beyond the field names. For example, slug is specified as the exact filename from list_market_data, and exchange lists concrete venue examples. Timeframe includes a note about venue-dependent omission, adding practical guidance.
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 returns a time-limited download URL for a single executed-trades file, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other file types. The verb 'Return' is precise, and the reference to list_market_data clarifies the intended usage context.
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 explicitly instructs to use list_market_data (md_type=trades) first to obtain the exact slug, providing a clear precondition and workflow. This effectively tells the user when and how to invoke the tool, leaving no ambiguity about the prerequisite step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Browse the Convex Lake data catalog by drilling down one level at a time. With no parameters it lists market data types (orderbook, trades, candles, surface, bbo). Add md_type to list exchanges, then exchange to list tickers, then ticker to list timeframes, then timeframe to list dates, then date to list the actual files (their slug values are what the download tools need). Access is limited by the signed-in user's subscription tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| ticker | No | Ticker, e.g. btc, eth. | |
| md_type | No | Market data type, e.g. orderbook, trades, candles, surface, bbo. | |
| exchange | No | Venue: kalshi, polymarket, predict, limitless, deribit, binance. | |
| timeframe | No | Timeframe, e.g. 15 (minutes) or 1h. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tier | No | |
| prefix | No | |
| folders | No | |
| objects | No | |
| next_token | No | |
| is_truncated | No | |
| allowed_exchanges | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful access limitation context ('limited by subscription tier'). It does not mention edge cases like empty results, but the read-only and idempotent behavior is well covered by annotations.
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 compact and every sentence adds value: it explains the browsing model, the parameter sequence, the relation to download tools, and access constraints. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 output schema exists and the annotation covers read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains the full hierarchical navigation and the subscription limitation.
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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining the required traversal order: md_type → exchange → ticker → timeframe → date. It also clarifies that omitting all parameters lists market data types, which is not obvious from the schema alone.
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 lists/browses the Convex Lake data catalog and explains the hierarchical drill-down behavior. It distinguishes this tool from file/download retrieval tools by noting that the output slug values are what download tools need.
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 gives strong usage context: start with no parameters to see market data types, then add parameters to drill down. It implies this is for discovery rather than file retrieval, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state 'use this instead of get_*_file'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_candles_fileget_download_urlget_orderbook_fileget_profileget_subscriptionget_surface_fileget_trades_filelist_market_dataClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Order-book depth & history for Polymarket, Kalshi & Limitless. Keyless demo, key for full access.
Prediction market data and crowd-sourced probability forecasts
Keyless prediction-market data across 12 venues plus paper-trading of crypto spot, futures, and PM.
Live prediction markets: Polymarket + Kalshi prices, odds, order books. Pay-per-call USDC, no key.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: four file download tools are differentiated by data type (candles, orderbook, surface, trades), with a generic fallback for exact keys. list_market_data handles browsing, and profile/subscription tools are clearly separate.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for retrieval actions and list_* for browsing. The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixing of conventions.
8 tools is well-scoped for a market data server covering file downloads, catalog browsing, and user account details. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface fully covers the domain: users can browse the entire catalog hierarchically and download every file type via dedicated tools, with a generic fallback. Account and subscription info are also included. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.
