Check a Polymarket prediction market for integrity anomalies.
Analyzes volume spikes, price-volume divergence, liquidity ratios,
and outcome price spreads to detect potential manipulation.
Args:
market_id: Polymarket market/condition ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market_id | Yes | Polymarket market/condition ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / market_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Polymarket market/condition ID"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by naming the four analysis dimensions used, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or what happens when a market ID is unknown or illiquid.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with analysis detail immediately after. The trailing Args block duplicates schema content and is the only waste, but it is short.
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?
A single required parameter plus a read-only profile and an output schema means little more is needed; the analysis dimensions give the agent enough to trust the result. Only the behavior on invalid or thin markets is unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and the description's 'Args:' line merely restates the schema's own text ('Polymarket market/condition ID') verbatim. No format example or accepted ID variant is added, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Check a Polymarket prediction market for integrity anomalies') and enumerates the exact signals analyzed (volume spikes, price-volume divergence, liquidity ratios, outcome price spreads). This clearly separates it from the credential/registry/reputation siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied — you call it when you want to detect manipulation in a specific market — but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over near-domain neighbors like moltguard_score, moltguard_detail, or moltguard_sybil, nor any prerequisites 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.