get_oddsCurrent YES/NO prices and implied probability for any Polymarket or HIP-4 market token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | Yes | Platform the market is on: "polymarket" or "hip4" | |
| identifier | Yes | For Polymarket: the token_id of the YES or NO outcome. For HIP-4: the base asset ticker (e.g. "BTC") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations (which already declare readonly and open-world) by specifying the output: 'prices and implied probability'. However, it does not detail any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or authentication requirements, so it is adequate but not exceptional.
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 a single, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without extraneous words. Every word is substantive.
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 the tool's simplicity, the description fully covers what it does and what it returns. No output schema exists, but the description clearly states the expected output (prices and implied probability), making it complete for its purpose.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the two parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.
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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('YES/NO prices and implied probability') and clearly identifies the target platforms ('Polymarket or HIP-4 market token'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price_summary or get_market_context, which serve different purposes.
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 clearly indicates the tool is used for fetching odds for Polymarket or HIP-4 market tokens, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or suggest alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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.