Skip to main content
Glama

Phishtank

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Bet Research

bet_research
Read-onlyIdempotent

Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call. Pass a market slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), a polymarket.com URL, or a question text. The tool resolves the market, classifies the bet, fans out to category-specific data packs in parallel, and returns an evidence packet + simple market-vs-model comparison. Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z". CLASSIFIERS: crypto_price, fed_rate, geopolitical, sports, sports_championship, drug_approval, election_candidate, tech_launch, space_launch, corporate, corporate_earnings, corporate_event, public_figure_speech, weather, other. FAN-OUT EXAMPLES: BTC bet → coingecko + fred + gdelt+gnews; Fed bet → fred (DFEDTARU + EFFR + CPIAUCSL) + kalshi_macro (KXFED implied probs) + recent_fed_actions (federal-register rules, last 365d); Hormuz bet → imf_portwatch + airspace + gdelt; Yankees WS → mlb_stats_standings + parent_event partition + news; hottest-year bet → climate_projection_nyc + gistemp_latest (NASA global anomaly, rank since 1880) + news; NVDA-vs-AAPL → finnhub get_quote + edgar shares-outstanding (derived market cap) + edgar filings + news. RESPONSE SHAPES: result.market carries best_bid/best_ask/spread_pp/liquidity/price_change_1h/1d/1w; result.analysis carries model_probability/edge_pp/kelly_fraction_half when a closed-form model fires PLUS a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h, comparable to model edge — your edge may already be priced in") when relevant; result.evidence is keyed by source. RESOLVER CONTRACT: result.market_match_confidence ∈ {high, medium, low, none}, market_match_score (0-1 token-overlap), market_match_alternatives[] (other candidate markets the resolver considered), and suggestions[] (explicit re-query hints when the match is fuzzy) — ALWAYS inspect these before trusting the analysis block, because medium/low matches can still surface other fields. PARENT_EVENT EXTRACTOR: when the bet is one leg of a partition (Yankees WS, Romania election), result.parent_event{matched_candidate, top_legs_by_price[], partition_size, placeholders_filtered} gives you the peer prices in one place — that's the headline for elections/championships. NEWS FIELDS: news entries carry _fallback_attempted / _fallback_failed_reason / retry_after_sec when GDELT 429s and GNews backfill ran or failed. SAFETY: low-confidence resolutions short-circuit with status:"low_confidence_match" and suppress analysis fields so agents can't accidentally size on phantom matches. Closed/dead markets that ARE still indexed by Polymarket (yes_price≈0, no volume, no liquidity) return status:"market_closed_or_inactive" and skip fan-out. In practice resolved markets are usually de-indexed and instead surface via the low_confidence_match path above — both routes are BLOCKING, just different mechanisms. Wide-spread markets (>10pp) carry tradeability:"illiquid_wide_spread" + an explanatory note. RESOLUTION-RULE RISK: market.cancellation_rule parses the void/postponement settlement out of the resolution text — refund_50_50 (shares settle flat 50¢ on void; EV-material for any entry away from 50¢, with ev_impact quantified), resolves_no_on_cancel, resolves_yes_on_cancel, carries_to_reschedule, or mentioned_unclear. null means the description never mentions cancellation. Check this before sizing sports/esports/event-occurrence bets — audited arb-bot ledgers show flat-50¢ void settlements are a recurring pure-rules loss.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoquick = 2-3 evidence sources, thorough = full fan-out. Default thorough.
marketYesPolymarket slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), full URL ("https://polymarket.com/event/..."), or question text ("Will Bitcoin hit $150k by June 30?")
include_rawNoDefault false. When false (recommended), FRED/FDA/GDELT/Federal-Register evidence is summarized to the few fields agents actually use — keeps responses under ~20KB. Pass true to get full upstream payloads (50KB-500KB) when you need to recompute deltas, cite specific observations, or post-process.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "market_input": "will fed cut rates in june 2026"
-  },
-  {
-    "market_input": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "market": "will-bitcoin-reach-100k-in-july-2026"
+  },
+  {
+    "market": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds extensive context: parallel fan-out to data sources, resolver contract with market_match_confidence, parent-event extraction, low-confidence short-circuit, closed-market status, wide-spread tradeability, and cancellation-rule risk. No contradictions with annotations; it goes far beyond what annotations convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely detailed and well-organized with sections, but it is overly long (over 500 words). While it front-loads the purpose clearly, it then dives into extensive specifics (e.g., fan-out examples, response field enumerations) that could be trimmed without losing critical value. It's not concise enough for a 5, but it's not vague enough for a 2.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining response shapes, evidence keying, resolver contract, parent_event extractor, news fallback fields, safety statuses, and resolution-rule risk. It covers all major aspects a user or agent would need to correctly interpret results for a complex research 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear explanations for market (slug/URL/question text), depth (quick/thorough enum), and include_raw (size impact). The description adds minimal additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call." It also provides concrete usage examples ("should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y") that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools focused on arbitrage, edges, or visibility checks.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states "Use for 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', or 'is there edge in Z'" — clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it misses full exclusion guidance.

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

All Phishtank 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The server is named 'Phishtank' but only one tool (check_url) relates to phishing. The remaining 31 tools cover a wide range of unrelated topics (data research, prediction markets, memory, etc.), many with overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). This makes it extremely difficult for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions inconsistently: some use underscores (ai_visibility_check, check_url), some are camelCase (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and others are compound phrases. There is no predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 32 tools, the count is high, but only one aligns with the server name 'Phishtank' (check_url). The vast majority belong to an entirely different domain (Pipeworx tools), making the tool count severely inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a phishing detection server, the tool surface is severely incomplete. It lacks essential tools like report_phish, verify_phish, get_stats, etc. The single phishing tool (check_url) is insufficient, while the other 31 tools are completely out of scope.

Resources