inspect_platformInspect a single named venue. Returns available capabilities, market data for the query, and metadata quality flags. Use when the user explicitly names a venue — "show me Polymarket markets on AI", "what's on Kalshi for Q4 inflation", "Manifold markets about geopolitics". For cross-venue queries use search_markets or compare_markets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| platform | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing the return contents (capabilities, market data, metadata quality flags), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions found.
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, then usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?
The tool is moderately complex (3 params, no output schema). The description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and return overview. It omits potential edge cases or error behavior, but given annotations and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete for an agent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'query' through examples ('show me Polymarket markets on AI') and implies 'platform' as the named venue, but it does not explain 'limit' or provide explicit parameter semantics. Partial compensation is present, but not comprehensive.
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 purpose: 'Inspect a single named venue' with specific output details (capabilities, market data, metadata quality flags). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'single named venue' versus cross-venue tools, and provides concrete examples.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user explicitly names a venue' with illustrative examples, and gives alternatives for cross-venue scenarios: 'For cross-venue queries use search_markets or compare_markets.' This fully addresses when/when-not.
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: searching, browsing, comparing, inspecting a single venue, scanning for discrepancies, and generating a synthesized brief. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other to clarify when to use which. No two tools are likely to be confused.
Five of six tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_markets, discover_markets, inspect_platform, scan_discrepancies, search_markets). 'market_brief' is a noun phrase, breaking the pattern slightly, but it is still clear and readable.
With six tools, the server is well-scoped for a prediction market intelligence domain. Each tool earns its place, covering discovery, search, comparison, discrepancy scanning, single-platform inspection, and synthesis without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core workflows: searching, browsing, comparing, inspecting, scanning, and briefing. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to fetch a single contract's detailed history or order book, but the current set is sufficient for most analytical queries.