Skip to main content
Glama

bridge_markets

Mini's TrollBridge — live Polymarket odds, prices, volume. TOLLED: $0.05 USDC per call via x402. If you cannot pay, this tool returns the 402 payment instructions instead of data. Optional limit 1-200.

Tool call template

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": "bridge_markets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return (1-200). Default 50.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max events to return (1-25). Default 10."New value: +"Max items to return (1-200). Default 50."
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Previous value: -25New value: +200
    • removedInput schema / properties / q
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Search terms for prediction markets (e.g. bitcoin, election, fed).",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
      -  "q"
      -]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two things an agent most needs: a per-call toll of $0.05 USDC via x402, and the failure mode where an unpaid call returns 402 payment instructions rather than data. It omits freshness guarantees, rate limits, and return shape, but the cost and error-path disclosure is substantive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the cost and failure behavior. The 'Mini's TrollBridge' branding is minor filler but does serve as a service identifier; otherwise nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what data comes back, what it costs, and what happens when payment fails. It lacks any indication of response shape, pagination, or data latency, which keeps it short of complete.

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 the schema already documents 'limit' with its 1-200 bounds and a default of 50. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (live Polymarket odds, prices, volume) with a clear identity ('Mini's TrollBridge'), which separates it from siblings like bridge_prices, bridge_models, or bridge_yields. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of the 5 bar for sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the payment model but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as bridge_prices or bridge_opportunities. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria beyond the implicit 'you want Polymarket data' reading.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.