search_marketsFull-text search across all Polymarket and HIP-4 prediction markets. Returns ranked results with current odds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (1–50, default: 10) | |
| query | Yes | Keywords to search in market names and descriptions, e.g. "bitcoin ETF", "US election", "Fed pivot" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'full-text search', 'returns ranked results with current odds'. No contradictions. The description enhances understanding without repeating structured fields.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides useful context about result shape (ranked with odds). Parameters are well-documented. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or result format beyond 'ranked results', but overall sufficient.
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?
Both parameters (query, limit) are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add extra semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states 'full-text search across all Polymarket and HIP-4 prediction markets' and 'returns ranked results with current odds'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_markets (which likely lists markets without search) and get_odds (which likely fetches odds for specific markets).
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?
Description implies usage for keyword-based market search but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations. The context is clear but incomplete.
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.