Get the prediction market leaderboard — top wallets by prediction score.
Returns wallets ranked by their composite prediction score,
which factors in win rate, ROI, volume, sample size, and recency.
Args:
limit: Number of entries to return (default 20, max 100)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of entries to return (default 20, max 100) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of entries to return (default 20, max 100)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the score composition (win rate, ROI, volume, sample size, recency) and that results are ranked, but it says nothing about pagination, snapshot timing, or how ties or minimum-activity thresholds are handled.
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 purpose and ranking explanation are front-loaded and tight. The trailing "Args:" block duplicates the schema field description, which is mild waste but not damaging.
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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, ranking basis, and the limit bound, leaving only minor gaps around result freshness and pagination.
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 single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default 20 and max 100. The description merely echoes that text verbatim, adding no new semantics, so the 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 ("Get the prediction market leaderboard — top wallets by prediction score") and clarifies the ranking basis. It is unambiguous on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like mt_prediction_wallet or mt_prediction_link.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The reader must infer that mt_prediction_wallet serves per-wallet lookups rather than leaderboard browsing.
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.