AgentPredict
Server Details
Prediction market intelligence
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct and clearly separate purpose: browsing markets, getting details on a specific market, and fetching trending markets. No ambiguity in their roles.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (browse_prediction_markets, get_market_details, get_trending_predictions), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools is slightly on the lower side but appropriate for a focused information-retrieval server. The tools cover the core use cases of discovery and detail lookup without being excessive.
The tool surface covers browsing, detail, and trending but lacks actions like placing bets or historical data queries. For a purely informational server, it is adequate but has noticeable gaps for full market interaction.
Available Tools
3 toolsbrowse_prediction_marketsAInspect
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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided so description carries burden. Discloses allowed categories and sources but no info on rate limits, data freshness, or response format. Adequate but limited.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters, no unnecessary words.
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?
Covers all 4 parameters with filtering options, but lacks description of output or pagination behavior. Given no output schema, still fairly complete for a browse tool.
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%, baseline 3. Description lists categories and sources already in schema, adding minimal extra meaning beyond schema descriptions.
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?
Clearly states it browses prediction markets from Polymarket and Manifold, with filtering by category or keyword. Distinguishes from siblings 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?
Implicitly indicates when to use (browsing with filters) vs siblings (specific details, trending), but lacks explicit guidelines on when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_market_detailsAInspect
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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return content (prices, outcomes, volume) but misses the default behavior (returns highest volume market if id omitted) which is only in schema. No annotations to supplement.
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, efficient, and front-loaded with the core 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?
Adequate for a simple tool but lacks explanation of default behavior and return format. Could be more complete given no output schema.
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 baseline applies. Description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what schema already 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?
Clearly states 'get detailed information for a specific prediction market', distinguishing it from sibling tools 'browse_prediction_markets' and 'get_trending_predictions' which imply listing and trending respectively.
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. Lacks context about usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_trending_predictionsAInspect
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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It indicates a read operation (fetching top markets) but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects. Minimal but adequate.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifies the data source (volume/liquidity).
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, but parameters are simple and optional. Description explains the ordering (by volume/liquidity) and provides enough context for a simple list query. Lacks explicit mention of response format but adequate given simplicity.
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 baseline is 3. Description adds context about why parameters matter (volume/liquidity), but does not go beyond what the schema already explains.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'trending predictions', and clarifies it fetches top markets by volume/liquidity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse_prediction_markets (general) and get_market_details (specific 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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., browse_prediction_markets or get_market_details). The description does not state prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!