Score any prediction market's dispute risk from 0 to 100 with transparent reasons using its slug, Gamma ID, or CLOB token ID.
PREMIUM SIGNAL — dispute-risk triage. Scores 0-100 how likely a market's resolution gets contested (UMA dispute risk) with transparent reasons. Takes the market slug, the Gamma id, or a CLOB token id (the market_id a search returns).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.18.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "dispute_riskOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the output scale (0-100) and the presence of 'transparent reasons', which an agent would not know from the schema or annotations alone. It does not contradict any annotations.
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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The key purpose and output scale are front-loaded, and the input flexibility is stated in the second sentence. Every phrase adds value, and the 'PREMIUM SIGNAL' label is a compact attention marker rather than a distraction.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what the tool does, the input format, and the kind of output (score plus reasons). It omits details about the exact response structure or any preconditions, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, the remaining gap is minor.
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%, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining the parameter. It does this well by stating that the single parameter can be a market slug, Gamma id, or CLOB token id, and clarifies the last as 'the market_id a search returns'. This gives the agent concrete sense of what values to pass, though it could include an explicit example format.
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 states a specific action ('scores 0-100 how likely a market's resolution gets contested') and a resource ('dispute-risk triage'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on UMA dispute risk, which no other sibling mentions. The 'PREMIUM SIGNAL' label adds context without obscuring the core function.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies it can be used after a search (by mentioning the 'market_id a search returns') but does not compare with related tools like resolution_criteria or settlement_audit. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.