Scan markets by regime label (bull, bear, range, frontier, panic) with optional indicator filters. For regime-based screening.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort field (e.g. as, score) | |
| label | No | Regime label filter | |
| limit | No | Max rows (default 50) | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| venue | No | kalshi or polymarket | |
| hasEdge | No | Filter to markets with non-trivial SimpleFunctions edge | |
| eventType | No | binary, scalar, ladder |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the action without disclosing output format, defaults, or side effects. The tool is likely a read-only scan, but that isn't stated, and 'optional indicator filters' is ambiguous.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and avoids fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning.
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?
The tool has 7 optional parameters but no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose but omits details like default limit, sort behavior, and what 'indicator filters' actually maps to. For a scan tool, the lack of return format or usage examples makes it less complete.
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%, providing descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds the specific regime labels enumeration (bull, bear, range, frontier, panic) beyond what the schema's 'Regime label filter' says. However, 'indicator filters' is vague and doesn't clearly map to schema properties like hasEdge.
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 scans markets by regime label, listing the specific labels (bull, bear, range, frontier, panic). It distinguishes the tool from generic scanners like scan_markets by emphasizing regime-based screening.
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?
The phrase 'For regime-based screening' provides clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of 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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple market query tools (scan_markets, screen_markets, get_market_detail, get_market_diff, get_market_history, inspect_ticker) and legislative tools (legislation, get_legislation, list_legislation, query_gov). Aliases like get_heartbeat_config/get_heartbeat_status and explore_public/explore_theses add further confusion. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool without deeply reading each description.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_), but there are notable deviations: 'legislation' lacks the 'get_' prefix, 'stt' and 'tts' are acronyms, 'monitor_the_situation' is a full phrase, and 'x_account/x_news/x_volume' use a non-standard prefix. The overall style is readable, but the mixed conventions reduce predictability.
108 tools is extreme for any server, even one covering prediction markets, trading, portfolio management, forum, skills, and speech. The massive surface area overwhelms agents and makes the server feel more like a platform than a coherent toolkit. This many tools inevitably leads to redundancy and maintenance burden.
The server covers an impressively broad domain: market data, thesis management, intents, strategies, positions, portfolio, forum, skills, legislative and economic queries, and audio/visual processing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete for skills/theses, no update for some portfolio items) but core workflows are well-supported. Overall lifecycle coverage for most entities is strong.
