Retrieves one prediction market series by its ID, showing what it tracks, its recurring cadence, and how many markets and days of historical archive are available.
One series (for example KXBTC15M or KXFEDDECISION): what it is, how often it runs, and how many markets and days the archive has.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| series_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful content about what information is returned: identity, cadence, market count, and archive day count. It does not add deeper behavioral context such as error handling or rate limits, but with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and examples placed efficiently in parentheses. Every clause maps directly to what the tool provides.
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?
For a simple one-parameter lookup with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description gives enough context about what the tool returns. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying how to obtain a series_id, but the core call is understandable.
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% for the single required series_id parameter. The description compensates somewhat by giving concrete example IDs, but it does not explain ID format rules, where to obtain valid IDs, or any constraints beyond the examples.
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 this retrieves information about a single series, with concrete examples (KXBTC15M, KXFEDDECISION) and the kinds of details returned. It distinguishes scope as singular versus list-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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 singular phrasing 'One series' implies this is for looking up a specific series rather than listing many, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like dataset_series or list_markets. Prerequisites and exclusions are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.