get_moversTop prediction markets ranked by 24h volume spike or biggest YES/NO price swing. Surfaces breaking news bets and momentum plays across Polymarket and HIP-4.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of top movers to return (1–20, default: 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld hints. The description adds context about the ranking criteria (24h volume spike, price swing) and sources, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail potential side effects or data freshness.
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?
Two sentences clearly describe the tool's function and output. No filler or redundant content. Front-loaded with the key purpose.
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 no output schema, the description gives a good sense of the return format (list of markets with rankings and metrics) and sources. It is adequately complete given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter). Minor improvement could mention if results include price or volume data.
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 covers the single parameter 'limit' with full description, default, and bounds. The description adds no new semantics beyond stating it returns top movers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 returns top prediction markets ranked by 24h volume spike or YES/NO price swing, and surfaces breaking news bets and momentum plays. It specifies the sources (Polymarket and HIP-4), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_volume_spikes or get_odds.
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 implies usage for momentum plays and breaking news, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_volume_spikes or search_markets. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.
Many tools are specialized, but several pairs have fuzzy boundaries: e.g., get_funding_rates vs get_top_funding_rates, get_basic_macro vs get_macro_context, get_simple_iv vs get_options_iv. An agent could easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a 'get_X' pattern with descriptive noun phrases. There are a few exceptions like 'create_api_key' and 'search_markets', but overall the convention is consistent and readable.
With 47 tools, the server is overloaded. While the domain is broad, this many tools makes discovery and selection difficult for an agent, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers an impressively wide range: macro data, funding, prediction markets, OI history, whale tracking, risk analytics, position sizing, backtesting, and signal generation. It leaves no obvious gaps for a crypto trading assistant.