LINE CHECK: who is buying the prediction-market line. Polymarket games starting in the next 72 h and the US midterm race board (Nov 3): per market, the side with the most fresh-or-clustered money, its $ and wallets (k of N), price, HEAT 0-100 with its N, and the pre-start stamp hash. Counts from the Polygon chain. Information only, not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the data source is the Polygon chain, each market shows fresh-or-clustered money concentration with wallet counts and HEAT scores, and it includes a pre-start stamp hash. It also states it is information only, not financial advice.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs several useful return-field details into a single paragraph. It is dense and jargon-heavy, but lacks filler and every sentence adds relevant context.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description does a good job listing the per-market fields an agent will see, including side, dollar and wallet counts, price, HEAT score, and stamp hash. Some field names like 'k of N' and 'HEAT 0-100 with its N' remain slightly opaque, but the overall scope is sufficiently complete.
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 tool has zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4.
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 resource and content: a LINE CHECK board for prediction-market line buying, covering Polymarket games in the next 72 hours and the US midterm race board. It is specific about what data is shown per market, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like market_heat.
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 gives scope details (next 72 hours, midterm race board) but never states when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are named or compared.
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.