The Manifold Markets MCP server provides comprehensive access to prediction market features, enabling users to create and manage markets, execute trades, and manage liquidity through a clean interface. It facilitates sophisticated market interactions with Manifold's platform, including market discovery, trading operations, information retrieval for users and portfolios, and social features like following markets and transferring mana.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: get-bets is for bets, get-market for a single market, get-user for a single user, while search-markets and search-users are search counterparts. There is no overlap or confusion between fetching a single entity and searching for multiple.
All tool names follow a consistent verb-noun pattern with lowercase and hyphenation: get-bets, get-market, get-user, search-markets, search-users. The verbs 'get' and 'search' are clear and consistently applied.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a read-only prediction market API. Each tool covers a core resource (markets, users, bets) without unnecessary bloat or missing essential access points.
The tool surface fully covers the read-only domain: search and retrieve markets, search and retrieve users, and fetch bets by market or user. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of accessing prediction market data.
get-betsGet BetsBInspectGet bets from markets or for users with various filtering options
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Optional. Bet ID to filter by | |
| after | No | Optional. Get bets after this bet ID | |
| kinds | No | Optional. Filter by bet kind | |
| limit | No | Optional. Number of bets to return (default: 1000) | |
| order | No | Optional. Sort order by creation time | |
| before | No | Optional. Get bets before this bet ID | |
| userId | No | Optional. User ID to filter by | |
| answerId | No | Optional. Answer ID to filter by | |
| username | No | Optional. Username to filter by | |
| afterTime | No | Optional. Get bets after this timestamp | |
| minAmount | No | Optional. Minimum bet amount | |
| beforeTime | No | Optional. Get bets before this timestamp | |
| contractId | No | Optional. Contract ID(s) to filter by | |
| contractSlug | No | Optional. Contract slug to filter by | |
| filterRedemptions | No | Optional. Filter redemptions |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Get bets', implying read-only but omits any details about pagination, rate limits, defaults, or possible side effects. The schema lists a default limit but the description does not mention it.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and avoids redundancy. Every word contributes to the overall purpose.
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 tool with 15 optional parameters and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not mention return values, pagination, or high-level usage scenarios. The schema descriptions cover parameter details but not the broader context needed to invoke the tool effectively.
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 provides descriptions for all 15 parameters, so the description's generic 'various filtering options' adds no additional meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving bets, with sources ('markets' or 'users') and mentions filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-market/get-user (single resources) and search-markets/search-users (search operations).
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 'from markets or for users' hints at contexts, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not state when to prefer this tool over search-markets or get-market, though the resource difference is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-marketGet MarketBInspectGet detailed information about a specific market
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Market ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only promises 'detailed information' without specifying what that includes (e.g., fields, return shape), any permissions needed, or operational behavior like rate limits. The tool's side effects (if any) are not addressed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' entails and how the response is structured. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about expected return values or error handling. The tool is simple, but the vagueness prevents full contextual completeness.
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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as how to obtain the ID or any restrictions on its format.
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's function with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('specific market'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search-markets, which imply a broader query. The qualifier 'specific' indicates a single-market lookup by ID.
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 implies usage when a particular market ID is known, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search-markets or other siblings. There are no references to alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-userGet UserBInspectGet user information by username
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Username |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any behavior such as return format, error handling (e.g., if the username is not found), or potential side effects. No extra context is added beyond the action itself.
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 a single, short sentence that immediately states the action and target. Every word is necessary, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 one-parameter getter, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what is returned, but it only says 'user information'. It also lacks usage context relative to sibling tools. However, the tool's simplicity mitigates these shortcomings.
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 description repeats the schema's 'username' parameter without adding extra detail about format, constraints, or case sensitivity. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional semantic value.
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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'user information' and specifies the lookup criterion 'by username'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get-bets and get-market, and implies an exact lookup compared to search-users. The purpose is unmistakable.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search-users. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer that this is for exact username lookups, but that is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search-marketsSearch MarketsBInspectSearch for prediction markets with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort order for market search (default: score). Do not use /markets sort values here. | |
| term | Yes | Search query | |
| limit | No | Max number of results (default: 100) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default: 0) | |
| creatorId | No | Optional. Creator (user) ID to filter by | |
| contractType | No | Market/question type filter (default: ALL). Use contractType, not outcomeType. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as search algorithm, result format, or pagination behavior. It only states the purpose, leaving the agent without information about what happens when the tool is invoked.
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 one concise sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words, making it well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Despite having a fully described schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns, how pagination works, or any behavioral limitations. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent is left with incomplete context about the search operation.
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 input schema fully documents all six parameters, so the description does not need to add semantics. It adds no extra meaning beyond saying 'optional filters', 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('prediction markets'), and mentions optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-market which retrieves a single market.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus get-market or search-users. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen, so there is no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search-usersSearch UsersAInspectSearch for users by username or display name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination (default: 0) | |
| term | Yes | Search query for username or display name | |
| limit | No | Max number of results (default: 500) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic search capability and does not mention pagination, result format, ordering, permissions, or any side effects. The schema hints at pagination, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It clearly states the purpose and searchable fields, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for understanding behavior. It explains what the tool does but omits details about the response format or pagination behavior. While the schema documents pagination parameters, the description could be more complete for an agent to know what to expect in the results.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by username or display name' aligns with the schema's description for the 'term' parameter, adding no significant new meaning beyond what the schema already exposes.
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 action ('Search for users') and the specific fields searched ('by username or display name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-user (which likely fetches a specific user) and search-markets (which searches a different resource).
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find users by username or display name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get-user for exact user ID lookup.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
