PolyBridge

PolyBridge Forecast

polybridge_forecast

Read-only

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

All PolyBridge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the same 'polybridge_' prefix followed by a descriptive verb-noun pattern ('search' and 'forecast'), creating a predictable and consistent naming convention.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?