Get complete market information for a prediction market, including metadata, tokens, volume, and liquidity to support analysis and decision-making.
Get complete market information including metadata, tokens, volume, and liquidity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Market slug (alternative identifier) | |
| market_id | No | Market ID | |
| condition_id | No | Condition ID (alternative identifier) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'complete market information' but does not disclose the response shape, payload size, potential slowness, or any prerequisites. It fails to set expectations for an agent.
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 that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words, but it is too terse to be fully effective.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'complete' returns, whether all parameters are truly optional, or whether at least one identifier is needed. This is a critical gap for a tool that appears to be a comprehensive getter.
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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning, such as which identifier is preferred or required. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'market information', and lists key components (metadata, tokens, volume, liquidity). This distinguishes it from specialized siblings like get_market_volume or get_liquidity, though 'complete' is somewhat vague.
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 on when to use this broad tool versus the many specialized siblings, nor on which identifier (slug, market_id, condition_id) to supply. The agent is left to infer when to call this instead of get_current_price, get_orderbook, etc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.