PolyBridge

PolyBridge Search

polybridge_search

Read-only

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`request_id`	Yes
`total_markets`	Yes
`dimensions_returned`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

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?