PolyBridge
Server Details
Calibrated probabilistic foresight for AI agents, powered by live prediction-market signal.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for synthesizing a probability forecast from evidence, the other for discovering relevant markets. Their descriptions explicitly state when to use each, eliminating ambiguity.
Both tools follow the same 'polybridge_' prefix followed by a descriptive verb-noun pattern ('search' and 'forecast'), creating a predictable and consistent naming convention.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but appropriately scoped for discovery and forecasting. It could benefit from one or two additional tools (e.g., market detail lookup) but remains effective for its stated purpose.
The tools cover the core workflow of searching markets and generating forecasts, but lack direct access to individual market details or historical data, which would enhance completeness for a prediction market assistant.
Available Tools
2 toolspolybridge_forecastPolyBridge ForecastARead-onlyInspect
Generate a read-only probability forecast for a clearly stated future event by searching relevant prediction markets and synthesizing evidence. Use when the user asks for a probability, outlook, or forecast; use polybridge_search when they only need market discovery. Does not place trades, provide financial advice, or access private/internal data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | Clearly stated future-event forecasting question, 500 characters or fewer. | |
| include_graph | No | Whether to include the causal graph in the structured response. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | No | |
| metadata | No | |
| question | Yes | |
| reasoning | Yes | |
| confidence | Yes | |
| latency_ms | Yes | |
| request_id | Yes | |
| engine_type | Yes | |
| probability | No | |
| causal_graph | No | |
| distribution | No | |
| markets_used | Yes | |
| confidence_interval | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds further behaviors: does not place trades, provide financial advice, or access private/internal data, with no contradiction.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance, no redundant information.
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 output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and limitations completely. No missing context.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 generates a read-only probability forecast by searching markets and synthesizing evidence, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling polybridge_search.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool (user asks for probability/outlook/forecast) and when not (use polybridge_search for market discovery only), and clarifies limitations like no trades or financial advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
polybridge_searchPolyBridge SearchARead-onlyInspect
Search public prediction markets for markets relevant to a natural-language topic or question. Use when you need candidate markets, market URLs, outcomes, statuses, and relevance scores. Do not use for a final probability forecast, market-history lookup, trading, or private/internal data. Scores are relevance scores, not probabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Natural-language topic or question to match to public markets. | |
| filters | No | Optional market filters. Currently only filters.status is supported, with active, closed, or resolved. | |
| dimensions | No | Search dimensions to run. Uses all supported dimensions by default. | |
| top_k_per_dimension | No | Maximum number of candidate markets to return per search dimension. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| warnings | No | |
| request_id | Yes | |
| total_markets | Yes | |
| dimensions_returned | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds context about public vs private data and clarifies score interpretation, but could mention rate limits or authentication needs. No contradiction with 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words. 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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the purpose, use cases, exclusions, and score interpretation, making it complete for a search tool.
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 coverage is 100% and parameters are well-described in the schema. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'public prediction markets', specifies the returned fields (candidate markets, URLs, outcomes, statuses, relevance scores), and distinguishes from the sibling tool polybridge_forecast.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (need candidate markets) and when not to use (final probability forecast, market-history lookup, trading, private data). Also clarifies that scores are relevance scores, not probabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!