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 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, and access requirements. It does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it makes external network calls to Polymarket, or whether it requires any preconditions. It only describes the analysis logic, which overlaps with purpose and adds no behavioral 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 definition is compact and front-loaded: the purpose sentence appears first, followed by the analysis details and a minimal Args section. Every sentence contributes, with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.
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 there is a single parameter, the description covers the core input semantics and the analysis scope. However, it omits usage context (when to choose this over siblings) and behavioral safety declarations (read-only, side-effect-free), which are essential for safe invocation without annotations.
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 only defines market_id as a string with no description. The description adds 'Polymarket market/condition ID,' which gives the parameter meaning but not format, examples, or how to obtain it. With a single parameter and 0% schema coverage, this minimal explanation is adequate but not rich.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check a Polymarket prediction market for integrity anomalies.' It then enumerates concrete analysis signals (volume spikes, price-volume divergence, liquidity ratios, outcome price spreads), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like moltguard_score or moltguard_sybil that likely address different concerns.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor states conditions like 'use when you suspect manipulation' or 'for a broader market overview use moltguard_feed'. The agent must guess which of the many moltguard_* and mt_* tools is appropriate.
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.