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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that omitting the id returns the highest volume active market, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe/read-only, though it is implied.
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, well-structured sentence with no redundant information. All words earn their place, and key details are 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?
Given two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (prices, outcomes, volume) and the default behavior for the id parameter. It could be improved by explicitly stating it is a read-only operation, but overall it is sufficient.
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. The description adds value by explaining that omitting the id parameter defaults to the highest volume active market. For the source parameter, it restates the default and allowed values already in the schema, providing reinforcement.
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 'detailed information for a specific prediction market', including examples of data (prices, outcomes, trading volume). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_prediction_markets and get_trending_predictions, which focus on browsing or trending rather than specific market details.
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 retrieving details on a specific market, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling tool names are only in context signals, not mentioned in the description.
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 clearly distinct purpose: browsing markets with filters, getting detailed information on a specific market, and fetching trending markets. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: browse_prediction_markets, get_market_details, get_trending_predictions.
Three tools is appropriate for a focused server covering browsing, details, and trending. The scope is well-defined without being too sparse or bloated.
The set covers the core information retrieval needs: discover, examine, and see trends. A minor gap is historical data or outcome timelines, but for a lightweight server this is reasonable.