MCP Predictive Market

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'side-by-side odds comparison,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Side-by-side odds comparison for markets matching a query.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the complexity of odds comparison and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'side-by-side' entails (e.g., format, data included), how results are returned, or any behavioral traits like performance or limitations. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Search query to find markets to compare.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only reiterates that the query finds 'markets to compare.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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's purpose: 'Side-by-side odds comparison for markets matching a query.' It specifies the verb ('comparison'), resource ('odds'), and scope ('markets matching a query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_market_odds' or 'search_markets,' which might offer similar functionality, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_market_odds' (which might fetch odds for a single market) or 'search_markets' (which might list markets without odds comparison). This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.