free_odds_sampleFREE teaser. Paid odds_pulse $0.005, odds_movers $0.01, odds_hypothesis $0.03 (research snapshot NOT a trade call).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "free_odds_sample"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description only adds the disclaimer "research snapshot NOT a trade call"; it says nothing about rate limits, data freshness, or what the teaser contains relative to the paid products, which is the key behavioral question for a funnel tool.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with the free/paid distinction, which is appropriate. However, the sentence is compressed to the point of being cryptic (bare price list, unexplained "research snapshot") and spends its budget on pricing instead of what the call returns.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return payload, yet it never says the response includes the Fear & Greed index and three Polymarket questions. An agent must read the title to know what it gets back.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; baseline applies. No parameter semantics are needed.
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?
"FREE teaser" is a vague noun phrase; the actual content (Fear & Greed plus 3 Polymarket questions) lives only in the title, not the description. The description does distinguish this tool from the paid siblings by naming odds_pulse, odds_movers and odds_hypothesis with prices, which gives the agent a usable contrast.
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 pricing ladder implies "use this free preview, then upgrade to a paid tool for the full dataset", but the description never states when to use this tool versus the paid ones explicitly. No prerequisites, rate limits, or freshness guidance are given.
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.