top_marketsMost-active open Futuur markets (attention signal), ranked by trading volume. Returns each market with per-outcome implied probabilities (OOM play-money + USDC real-money). Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max markets to return (default 15, max 25). | |
| currency_mode | No | Which currency to rank volume by and emphasize: "real_money" (USDC, default) or "play_money" (OOM). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10
+ },
+ {
+ "currency_mode": "play_money",
+ "limit": 20
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds 'Keyless' (no authentication needed), which is valuable beyond annotations, and clarifies that both OOM play-money and USDC real-money probabilities are returned. This adds meaningful behavioral context.
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 tightly written sentences: the first names the purpose and ranking, the second summarizes the return values. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, ranking logic, returned data (implied probabilities per currency), and authentication requirement. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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% with descriptive parameter text. The description does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states (limit, currency_mode). It echoes the ranking and currency emphasis but provides no additional syntax or edge-case details.
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 lists most-active open Futuur markets ranked by trading volume and returns per-outcome implied probabilities. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_market (single market) and search_markets (search) by focusing on the top-list aggregation.
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?
Provides clear context that these are 'attention signal' markets, implying use for discovering trending markets. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, which prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.