Prediction market intelligence
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: browsing markets, getting details on a specific market, and fetching trending predictions. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern ('browse_prediction_markets', 'get_market_details', 'get_trending_predictions').
Three tools is appropriate for a focused prediction market server, covering primary read operations without unnecessary bloat.
Covers core read operations (browse, details, trending) but lacks advanced filters or search by market ID, which are minor gaps for informational use.
Browse prediction markets from Polymarket and Manifold. Filter by category (crypto, politics, sports, economics, science, entertainment, pop-culture) or search by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Keyword search | |
| tag | No | Category filter (crypto, politics, sports, economics, science, entertainment, pop-culture) | |
| limit | No | Number of results (default 20, max 50) | |
| source | No | polymarket, manifold, or all (default: all) | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the data sources (Polymarket, Manifold) and filtering options, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, default behavior (e.g., returns all markets if no filters), or result structure.
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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by filter options. Every word adds value with no fluff.
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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description omits key context: default behavior when no filters are applied, result format, and pagination. For a browsing tool, this leaves an agent without enough information to understand the full output or navigate common use cases.
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% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description repeats some parameter info (category filter, keyword search) but adds no substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 browses prediction markets from two specific platforms (Polymarket and Manifold) and supports filtering by category or keyword. This verb+resource combination is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_details and get_trending_predictions.
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 for searching and filtering prediction markets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., for lists vs. details or trending). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information for a specific prediction market including prices, outcomes, and trading volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Market ID or condition_id. If not provided, returns the highest volume active market. | |
| source | No | polymarket or manifold (default: polymarket) | polymarket |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It discloses that it returns prices, outcomes, and trading volume, but does not mention read-only status, rate limits, authentication needs, or caching behavior. Adequate but incomplete.
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?
Single sentence of 15 words, no unnecessary words, directly communicates purpose and sample output. Ideal conciseness.
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?
No output schema exists, so description should explain return values. It mentions prices, outcomes, and trading volume but omits structure, format, and the default behavior (if no id, returns highest volume active market). Adequate but with gaps.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it lists output fields but not parameter-specific details.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information for a specific prediction market', listing example fields (prices, outcomes, trading volume). It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying a specific market rather than browsing or trending, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browse_prediction_markets or get_trending_predictions. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get what the prediction markets are betting on right now. Fetches top markets by volume/liquidity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (default 10, max 50) | |
| source | No | polymarket, manifold, or all (default: all) | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic behavior (fetches top markets by volume/liquidity) but lacks disclosure of traits like read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or what exactly is returned (e.g., market summaries vs full details).
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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word contributes value with no unnecessary filler.
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 tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., is it a list of market IDs or summaries?) which could hinder an AI agent's understanding of the output.
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%, with both parameters (limit, source) already well-described in the schema. The description adds context about 'volume/liquidity' but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'what the prediction markets are betting on right now', and specifies the method 'Fetches top markets by volume/liquidity'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'browse_prediction_markets' and 'get_market_details' by focusing on trending predictions, though not explicitly.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'browse_prediction_markets' for all markets or 'get_market_details' for specific ones). No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
browse_prediction_marketsget_market_detailsget_trending_predictionsClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
