Skip to main content
Glama

404.directory

by io.github.MM-sheng

Preflight a Polymarket decision

evaluate_prediction_market

Evaluate one specific Polymarket market before an AI Agent observes or contemplates buying or selling a Yes/No position. Use immediately before a decision when settlement wording, source ambiguity, timing boundaries, order-book depth, spread, slippage, geographic eligibility, or unattended execution could change whether the Agent should proceed. Returns a deterministic allow, review, or block decision with public evidence, a risk score, bounded unknowns, and a receipt. This tool never predicts the winner, never places or signs an order, never accesses a wallet, and is not investment or legal advice. For size-specific liquidity analysis, provide estimated_notional_usd. For a trading action, provide the current geoblock result from the real execution environment rather than guessing eligibility.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketYesA Polymarket market URL, numeric market ID, or exact market slug. Other hosts are rejected.
execution_modeNoWhether a human will supervise the contemplated action.supervised
intended_actionYesThe next action under consideration. Use observe for research that will not place an order.
estimated_notional_usdNoApproximate USD notional of the contemplated order. Include it for depth and slippage analysis; this never places an order.
geographic_eligibilityNoCaller-observed result of Polymarket's geoblock check from the actual execution environment. It is self-reported and not independently verified by 404.directory.unknown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

While annotations indicate openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds valuable specifics: 'never predicts the winner, never places or signs an order, never accesses a wallet' and that it returns a deterministic decision with evidence and risk score. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the non-transactional nature without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by return characteristics and parameter tips. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly long. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately organized for an agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (a deterministic allow/review/block decision, public evidence, risk score, bounded unknowns, receipt). It also clarifies exclusions (not advice, no trades). It covers all parameters contextually and is complete for the tool's preflight purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds usage guidance for estimated_notional_usd ('for size-specific liquidity analysis') and for geographic_eligibility ('provide the current geoblock result from the real execution environment'), which enriches parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (evaluate), the specific resource (one Polymarket market), and the context (before an AI Agent observes or contemplates buying/selling a Yes/No position). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like report_prediction_market_outcome (post-decision) by emphasizing the pre-decision 'preflight' nature.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use immediately before a decision' and lists specific conditions that trigger use (settlement wording, source ambiguity, timing, depth, etc.). It also gives parameter-specific guidance for liquidity and geoblock. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, though the context strongly implies pre-trade evaluation.

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

All 404.directory toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Potential overlap exists among search_tools, recommend_tools, list_capabilities, and get_capability_graph, but each serves a different purpose (query vs. recommendation vs. high-level list vs. relational graph). inspect_tool_server vs. get_tool (server vs. tool) and verify_web vs. understand_webpage (reachability vs. content) are clearly separated. Minor ambiguity between list_capabilities and get_capability_graph, but descriptions clarify.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_tools, get_tool, search_tools, verify_web). No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent styles. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriate for a directory service that provides search, retrieval, comparison, recommendation, inspection, invocation, and web verification. The count is comprehensive without being overwhelming, and each tool adds distinct value.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core directory operations (search, get, compare, recommend) and additional utilities (inspect, invoke, trust score, capability graph). It lacks a direct 'list all tools' or 'list all servers' endpoint, but search_tools and list_capabilities can approximate this. The inclusion of web verification and understanding tools extends beyond the catalog domain, but they are useful adjuncts. Overall, the surface is well-rounded with minor gaps.

Resources