Get prediction market profile and track record for a wallet.
Returns the prediction score (0-100), win/loss record, volume, ROI,
score breakdown, and recent market events.
Args:
address: Prediction market wallet address (0x-prefixed, 42 chars)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the returned fields but does not mention side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. Although 'Get' implies a read, this is not explicit, and there is no mention of error conditions or what happens for invalid addresses. The description is too thin for a tool with no 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second lists return fields, and the Args section is a clean bullet. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every sentence adds value.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the key return fields and specifies the address format. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the address must already exist in the system) or error behavior, which would be useful. The presence of an output schema covers return structure, so this is a minor gap.
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 has 0% description coverage for the address parameter, so the description must compensate. It does by specifying 'Prediction market wallet address (0x-prefixed, 42 chars)', providing both format and length. This adds meaningful validation context beyond the schema's type-only definition, though it could go further (e.g., mainnet vs testnet, checksum 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 clearly states the tool gets a prediction market profile and track record for a wallet, with a specific verb (Get) and resource (wallet profile). It lists the returned fields (score, win/loss, volume, ROI, breakdown, events), which distinguishes it from siblings like mt_prediction_leaderboard and mt_prediction_link. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The only context is the purpose itself, which is implied but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.
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.