get_market_oddsRetrieve live odds and top-of-book prices for one Polymarket or Kalshi market by slug or ticker to check current implied probabilities.
Live odds and top-of-book for one market. Polymarket: market slug (uses Gamma + CLOB midpoint/book). Kalshi: market ticker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Polymarket slug or Kalshi ticker (from search_markets) | |
| venue | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context on provenance (Gamma + CLOB midpoint/book for Polymarket) and that results are live/top-of-book, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown slugs/tickers, caching or staleness of 'live' data.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then venue-specific identifier semantics. Nothing is padded, though the 'uses Gamma + CLOB midpoint/book' clause is implementation detail of limited selection value.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does state what comes back (live odds plus top-of-book). With only two required parameters and read-only annotations, this is close to complete; only failure/staleness behavior is unaddressed.
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 50% and the id field already documents 'Polymarket slug or Kalshi ticker', which the description largely restates. The venue enum is self-explanatory in the schema. The clarification that Polymarket uses Gamma + CLOB adds marginal meaning but not parameter syntax or constraints.
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?
States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Live odds and top-of-book for one market'. 'One market' implicitly separates it from multi-market siblings (search_markets, trending_markets, compare_markets), though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the single-market lookup once a venue and id are known, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use search_markets instead if…' language. The id provenance hint lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.