Fetch complete details for a single prediction market by providing a slug, Gamma market ID, or CLOB token ID.
Get one market's details. Accepts the market slug, the Gamma market id, or either of its CLOB token ids (the market_id that find_markets and search_markets return), so a token id from a search can be passed straight in.
| 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": "get_marketOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds context about accepted identifier forms, which is useful, but it does not disclose what 'details' includes or how the response is shaped. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.
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?
A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the input semantics unfolded efficiently. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
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, the description fully covers the parameter semantics, and annotations cover behavioral safety. The only real omission is the unspecified content of 'details' since there is no output schema, leaving the agent to infer the response shape — a minor gap.
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%, leaving the description to fully explain the id_or_slug parameter. It does so excellently by enumerating the three accepted forms — market slug, Gamma market id, and CLOB token ids — and tying the last one to find_markets/search_markets output.
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 ('Get') and resource ('one market's details'), clearly distinguishing it as a single-market lookup versus list-returning tools like find_markets and search_markets. The mention of accepted identifier forms adds precision without confusion.
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 clear context by explaining that token ids from find_markets and search_markets can be passed straight in, implying when to use this tool. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like get_orderbook or states when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.