Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stealthguard-402

stealthguard-402

by ak10082247-max
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

polymarket_crypto_odds

Fetch sanitized BTC, ETH, and SOL prediction market probability spreads and liquidity depth in basis points to assess market sentiment and orderbook conditions.

Instructions

Sanitized BTC, ETH, and SOL Polymarket probability spreads and liquidity depth in basis points. Price: 0.01 USDC on Base.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "polymarket_crypto_odds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoCrypto asset (BTC, ETH, SOL)BTC

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the call costs 0.01 USDC on Base, implying a paid x402 endpoint the agent must be funded for. It does not confirm read-only behavior, data freshness, or rate limits, and 'Sanitized' is left unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with no padding, and the resource scope leads before the pricing note. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, so it lands just short of 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the rough return content (spreads and liquidity depth in bps) and the access cost, which is the most critical operational fact. It still leaves the exact return shape ('spreads' of what), data freshness, and the meaning of 'sanitized' undefined.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its allowed values (BTC, ETH, SOL) with a default. The description repeats the same asset list but adds no format, casing, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the specific resource (Polymarket probability spreads and liquidity depth) and scopes it to BTC/ETH/SOL, so the agent knows it returns market-derived metrics rather than raw prices. It does not differentiate itself from sibling Polymarket tools like polymarket_alpha_divergence or polymarket_top_whales, leaving overlap ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other Polymarket siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only implicit usage cue is the asset scope, which is already in the schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools