Retrieve alerts from the watchlist audit log. Filter by address, severity (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL), and/or ISO timestamp 'since'. Default returns the 50 most recent alerts across the whole watchlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (max 500) | |
| since | No | ISO 8601 timestamp (e.g. 2026-04-20T00:00:00Z) | |
| address | No | ||
| severity | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the default limit of 50 and the cross-watchlist scope, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or other edge cases, though the read-only nature is implied by 'retrieve'.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes all essential information without redundancy. Every clause adds value, from the resource type to the filter options and default behavior.
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 retrieval tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the source (watchlist audit log), filtering options, and default limit. It does not detail the return structure, but given the simplicity, it is adequately 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?
The schema has descriptions for only half of the parameters (limit and since). The description adds meaning to the undocumented 'address' and 'severity' parameters by explaining they are filters, and explicitly lists severity values. It also clarifies that 'since' is an ISO timestamp, augmenting the schema information.
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 retrieves alerts from the watchlist audit log, using the specific verb 'Retrieve' and a defined resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pg_whale_list by focusing on the audit log alerts rather than watchlist management.
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 description explains that it can be filtered by address, severity, and since, and notes the default behavior of returning the 50 most recent alerts. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity regarding its place among sibling 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.