Skip to main content
Glama

tollbooth

by io.github.huwhitememes

polymarket_market_scan

Scan high-volume active Polymarket markets for resolution candidates and fee-adjusted YES+NO bundle violations. Intelligence only; verify live books and rules before acting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMarkets to scan, default 100
min_edgeNoMinimum bundle net edge, default 0.02
min_certaintyNoResolution-candidate threshold, default 0.95
min_liquidityNoMinimum liquidity in USD, default 1000
min_volume_24hNoMinimum 24h volume in USD, default 5000

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that it is intelligence-only and advises verification, but does not cover rate limits, data freshness, or potential behavioral traits beyond the stated purpose.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given good parameter schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context but lacks details on return format or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states it scans Polymarket markets for resolution candidates and bundle violations, using specific verbs and identifying the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool polymarket_event_scan.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for intelligence only and advises verification, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.

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

All tollbooth toolsInspect
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

C2.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools cover very diverse domains (weather, FDA, legal, crypto, etc.), so cross-domain confusion is low. However, within domains there is notable overlap: multiple food recall tools (food_recall_check, food_safety), multiple weather tools (weather_current_global, weather_forecast_grid, weather_alerts, weather_bias), and several Polymarket-related tools. This can cause agent misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (search_arxiv, scrape, validate_agent_manifest), others use noun phrases (smart_money, space_weather, tide_data), and some are long descriptive phrases (cross_platform_arb_scan, polymarket_event_scan). No single pattern is followed, making predictions difficult.

Tool Count1/5

95 tools is excessively high for any coherent purpose. The server appears to be a random aggregation of APIs with no clear scope. Such a large catalog overwhelms agents and dilutes utility; most tools could be split into specialized servers.

Completeness2/5

Although many domains are touched, each is covered only shallowly. For example, weather lacks historical data, legal lacks case details beyond court opinions, and financial lacks stock prices. There are obvious gaps like no user authentication or data persistence. The tool set feels like a collection of endpoints rather than a cohesive service.

Resources