List recurring market series such as sports seasons, Fed decisions, and election cycles. Use limit and offset to paginate through available groupings.
List series (recurring groupings like 'nfl-2025', 'fed', 'us-midterms-2026').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only semantic context ('recurring groupings') and examples; it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as live data, default pagination, or changes between calls.
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 front-loaded sentence with concrete parenthetical examples and no filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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 list operation with two conventional optional pagination parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations covering read-only/idempotent/open-world behavior, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. The main omission is usage routing, but that is already captured in the usage_guidelines score.
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% and neither limit nor offset is mentioned in the description. The names and schema constraints are conventional, and 'List series' implies a paginated collection, but the description does not actually compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List series') and clarifies what a series is with concrete examples like 'nfl-2025' and 'fed'. It is clear at the resource level, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as pmus_list_events or pmus_list_markets.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions are given, and there is no mention that list_series can be used as a discovery step before querying events or markets. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the name and examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.