Multi-signal integrity scan: combines thin-book flag, spread, low liquidity, geopolitical-term pattern, end-date proximity, and 24h volume concentration. Returns score 0-100, level HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/CLEAN, triggered signals, and an operational recommendation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| slug | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey whether this is a safe read operation. The word 'scan' implies read-only, and the description details the output structure, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any side effects, limitations, or required permissions, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the key concept ('Multi-signal integrity scan') and enumerates components; the second succinctly lists the output fields. Every word earns its place.
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 description covers the output well (score, level, signals, recommendation) despite no output schema, but it omits parameter semantics and usage context. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps in how to target the scan and when to prefer it.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the id or slug parameters. It fails to explain that these likely identify the market to be scanned, leaving the agent to guess how to invoke the tool. With two parameters and zero explanation, this is a significant gap.
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 a multi-signal integrity scan, listing specific signal components (thin-book flag, spread, low liquidity, etc.) and the exact return format (score 0-100, level, triggered signals, operational recommendation). This fully identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from simpler sibling tools like pg_kalshi_thin_market_alert.
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?
No guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pg_prediction_market_integrity_gate or pg_resolution_risk_score. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context in which it should be selected over other integrity-related tools.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose covering different aspects of prediction market integrity (market analysis, wallet analysis, AML/KYC, alerting, reporting). There is minimal overlap risk, as even related tools (e.g., pg_insider_signal_scan vs. pg_information_advantage_score) are differentiated by input (market vs. wallet) and output type.
All tools share the 'pg_' prefix and use descriptive snake_case names, making the set predictable. However, the verb/noun order is inconsistent (e.g., pg_whale_add vs. pg_market_details). The pattern is still clear and functional, so minor deviation from a strict verb_noun pattern.
With 33 tools, the set is large but well-scoped for a comprehensive platform covering market analysis, wallet intelligence, compliance, and reporting. Each tool serves a distinct function, and the count is justified by the breadth of the domain, though it pushes the upper bound of 'reasonable'.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of prediction market integrity work: from market discovery and integrity scanning to wallet analysis, entity resolution, AML/KYC, watchlist management, alerting, and SAR reporting. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.