Order-book depth & history for Polymarket, Kalshi & Limitless. Keyless demo, key for full access.
Mid-price path per Polymarket market for backtesting, resampled to a fixed interval and bounded to each market's own lifetime so post-settlement books cannot leak in as risk-free fills. Returns {interval_seconds, markets:{:{points:[[ts_ms, price_up, coin_price], …]}}} — up to 1000 points per market. Pass 1 to 50 market ids from polymarket_search_markets. History is bounded by the plan window and the interval floor by plan; both fail closed rather than silently coarsening.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Comma-separated Polymarket market ids, 1 to 50, from polymarket_search_markets. | |
| coin | No | Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only. | btc |
| interval | No | Resample interval in seconds (default 60). The floor is set by plan; a finer value is refused, not rounded. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: resampling behavior, market-lifetime bounding to avoid risk-free post-settlement fills, the 1000-point cap, and plan-based limits that fail closed rather than silently coarsening. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent trust the returned data.
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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose before returning format and parameter constraints. Every sentence contributes: what the data is, the output shape, the source of ids, and the plan-based bounds.
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, the description supplies the return shape inline, including interval_seconds, per-market points with timestamp and price fields, and the point cap. It also covers allowed inputs, defaults, and failure semantics, making it sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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?
The schema already covers 100% of parameters, and the description still adds meaning: ids must come from polymarket_search_markets, interval has a plan-defined floor that is refused rather than rounded, and coin behavior distinguishes keyless demo (BTC-only) from full plans. This is meaningful enrichment over the raw schema.
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 names a specific resource and action: it provides resampled mid-price paths per Polymarket market for backtesting. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing backtesting-specific constraints such as bounding to each market's lifetime and preventing post-settlement leakage.
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 usage context: pass 1 to 50 market ids from polymarket_search_markets, and notes that history and interval floor are determined by the plan. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions versus sibling tools like bars or snapshots, but the backtesting framing makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
OHLCV price bars for US equities and ETFs, Binance spot pairs, and perpetual futures. One minute is the finest resolution; 5Min, 15Min, 1Hour and 1Day are rolled up from it and say so with derived. Spell a crypto pair the way the venue does (BTCUSDT, not BTC) and a perpetual with a .P suffix (BTCUSDT.P) — spot and perp are different instruments at different prices. BTCU, ETHU and WLDU are each both a US ETF and a Binance pair, and resolve to the equity — pass venue=binance to reach the pair instead. Optional venue selects the market explicitly: us-equities, binance (spot) or binance-futures (perpetuals). Bounded by the same plan history window as every other read (403 HISTORY_LIMIT_EXCEEDED past it); the plan also sets how many symbols one request may carry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | Yes | Comma-separated symbols, e.g. "AAPL,BTCUSDT,BTCUSDT.P". 3 per request on Explorer, 8 Quant, 16 Research, 32 Desk. | |
| end_time | No | End of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. | |
| timeframe | No | 1Min (default), 5Min, 15Min, 1Hour or 1Day. | |
| start_time | No | Start of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds critical behavioral context: plan history window bounding, 403 HISTORY_LIMIT_EXCEEDED error, per-request symbol limits, resolution roll-up and 'derived' flag, and spot/perp venue resolution. This goes well beyond the 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 long but information-dense, covering asset classes, resolution rules, symbol ambiguity, venue selection, and plan limits. It opens with purpose and each sentence adds essential detail without repetition or filler.
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?
The description covers purpose, asset scope, resolution, symbol naming, venue disambiguation, history limits, and symbol count. It does not explicitly describe the output format, but OHLCV bars imply the return structure, and the 'derived' flag hints at response contents. The missing venue parameter in the schema is a notable gap, but overall the tool is well-specified.
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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful symbol formatting examples and resolution semantics, but it also references an optional 'venue' parameter that is absent from the input schema. This discrepancy could mislead the agent into passing an invalid parameter, reducing the value of the additional meaning.
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 first sentence clearly states the tool returns OHLCV price bars for US equities/ETFs, Binance spot, and perpetual futures. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like kalshi_get_candles and polymarket_get_market, which serve other 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?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool via its asset scope and provides explicit symbol-naming conventions and venue disambiguation. However, it does not directly name alternative tools or state exclusions such as 'use this for equities/Binance, not for Kalshi/Polymarket'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Hourly OHLC candles (yes bid, yes ask, traded price) plus volume and open interest for a Kalshi market. This is the only history that exists for non-crypto Kalshi markets — Kalshi serves no historical order book — and it reaches back up to a year, far past the order-book capture. price is null in periods with no trade. Every account plan; history is bounded by your plan window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (1–500). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's pagination.next_cursor. | |
| ticker | Yes | Exact Kalshi market ticker from kalshi_search_markets (never constructed from a timestamp). | |
| end_time | No | End of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. | |
| interval | No | Candle period. Only 1h (60m) is recorded; omit for the default. | |
| start_time | No | Start of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavior: price can be null in no-trade periods, history reaches up to a year, and results are clamped to the account plan window. No contradiction with 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 core output is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the key limitation (only hourly, no order book) following immediately. The plan-window sentence is slightly elliptical but 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?
Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and the main null/availability behavior, which is enough for a read-only candle endpoint. Pagination and sorting are left to the schema, but no critical calling context is missing.
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 the schema already explains ticker, limit, cursor, interval, and time bounds. The description mostly restates that candles are hourly and reinforces the 1h interval rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.
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 resource (Kalshi market) and a specific data product (hourly OHLC candles plus volume and open interest), going beyond the tool name. It also distinguishes itself from order-book tools by noting Kalshi serves no historical order book.
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?
It explicitly frames this as the only historical data source for non-crypto Kalshi markets and says order-book history does not exist, giving clear context for when to choose candles over order-book/snapshot tools. It does not enumerate sibling tools by name or state a when-not-to-use case, but the intended use is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Latest yes/no order-book depth for a Kalshi market by ticker. Every account plan; only the keyless demo surface is refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Kalshi market ticker from kalshi_search_markets. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful access context: 'Every account plan; only the keyless demo surface is refused.' This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying who can use the tool and a specific rejection scenario, though it does not detail return structure.
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 sentences, the first stating the core action and scope, the second covering access. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete. It states the resource (Kalshi market), the output (order-book depth), and access caveats. The only omission is the exact shape of the order book return, but given no output schema and the tool's simplicity, it is acceptable.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with the ticker description, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add extra parameter semantics, but the schema's own description ('from kalshi_search_markets') provides useful sourcing context. No additional compensation needed.
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 tool retrieves the latest yes/no order-book depth for a Kalshi market by ticker. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like limitless_get_orderbook, which target a different platform.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It implies the need for a ticker but lacks guidance on selecting it vs. other order-book tools, such as limitless_get_orderbook. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Historical yes/no depth snapshots for a Kalshi market by ticker. Every account plan; history is bounded by your plan window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fill | No | ffill returns ONE ROW PER BUCKET for the whole window, carrying the last captured book into buckets that held no capture. Each row then carries `filled` (0 = a capture, 1 = carried forward) and `as_of_ts`, the moment that book was recorded. Requires `interval`. Without it, `interval` returns only the buckets that held a capture — a short series means the market is quoted infrequently, not that data is missing. | |
| limit | No | Page size (1–1000). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's pagination.next_cursor. | |
| ticker | Yes | Kalshi market ticker. | |
| end_time | No | End of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. | |
| interval | No | Downsample bucket — 30s, 1m, 5m, 1h, up to 1d. Returns the newest book in each bucket. Omit for every recorded book change. | |
| start_time | No | Start of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: history is clamped to the account's plan window. It does not disclose pagination, fill behavior, or return format, but given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and a secondary constraint (plan window) following. It is free of redundancy and efficiently communicates the core function, though it could have started with an action verb for even stronger clarity.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for explaining return behavior, but it does not mention what the snapshot data looks like or whether pagination is needed. The parameter schema is exhaustive and annotations cover safety, yet the lack of return-value context leaves a notable gap for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.
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 every parameter (ticker, fill, interval, start_time, end_time, limit, cursor) already has detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (Kalshi market by ticker) and the data type (historical yes/no depth snapshots). It distinguishes from siblings like kalshi_get_orderbook by emphasizing 'Historical' and from other platforms by naming Kalshi. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', making it slightly less direct than ideal.
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 implies usage for historical depth snapshot retrieval and adds a meaningful constraint (plan window bounds), but it does not specify when to choose this over alternatives such as kalshi_get_orderbook or limitless_get_snapshots. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Kalshi crypto markets (full yes/no depth, DepthFeed-exclusive). Every account plan; the keyless demo surface returns a 402 upsell.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only. | btc |
| type | No | Filter by market window/type. | |
| limit | No | Page size (1–100). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's pagination.next_cursor. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the DepthFeed exclusivity of full yes/no depth, that every account plan can access it, and the concrete failure mode that 'the keyless demo surface returns a 402 upsell.' This equips an agent to anticipate access-gated errors.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. The access/failure context earns its place: it tells the agent who can use the tool and what error to expect in the keyless demo. No filler or repetition of schema content.
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 moderate-complexity list tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the essential external context (account plans, 402 upsell, DepthFeed scoping). Without an output schema, the response shape is not spelled out, but the cursor parameter references pagination.next_cursor, giving a usable pointer to the response format.
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%, with each of the four parameters documented (coin enum, type filter, limit range, opaque cursor). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but with the schema carrying the full burden, the baseline score of 3 applies; no compensation is needed.
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 verb and resource ('List Kalshi crypto markets') and adds the scoping qualifiers 'full yes/no depth, DepthFeed-exclusive,' which set it apart from the sibling search tools for other venues (limitless_search_markets, polymarket_search_markets) and from Kalshi data-retrieval siblings (candles, orderbook, snapshots). An agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than explicit: naming 'Kalshi crypto markets' signals this is the market-listing tool for Kalshi, and 'DepthFeed-exclusive' hints it is the surface for full depth. However, the description never names a sibling alternative or states when to prefer this over kalshi_get_candles/orderbook/snapshots, so the guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Latest L2 depth (bids desc / asks asc) for a Limitless market by slug. Every account plan; only the keyless demo surface is refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Limitless market slug from limitless_search_markets. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: L2 depth, ascending/descending order of levels, and which access surface is restricted. This helps the agent know what to expect without over-explaining.
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?
One compact sentence packs the resource, format, ordering, and access constraints with zero redundancy. Every clause earns its place and the key behavior is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the essential return shape (bids desc / asks asc) and access rules. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or response envelope, but for a depth snapshot this is adequate.
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% for the single slug parameter, already specifying its source (limitless_search_markets). The description adds no extra semantics, which is acceptable given the schema carries the full meaning.
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 tool gets the latest L2 order book depth for a Limitless market by slug, with explicit ordering of bids and asks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kalshi_get_orderbook by naming the Limitless domain.
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?
It provides context on accessibility ('Every account plan; only the keyless demo surface is refused') and implies the slug must come from limitless_search_markets, giving a clear workflow hint. It does not explicitly contrast with limitless_get_snapshots or other alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Historical L2 depth snapshots (time series) for a Limitless market by slug. Every account plan; history is bounded by your plan window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fill | No | ffill returns ONE ROW PER BUCKET for the whole window, carrying the last captured book into buckets that held no capture. Each row then carries `filled` (0 = a capture, 1 = carried forward) and `as_of_ts`, the moment that book was recorded. Requires `interval`. Without it, `interval` returns only the buckets that held a capture — a short series means the market is quoted infrequently, not that data is missing. | |
| slug | Yes | Limitless market slug. | |
| limit | No | Page size (1–1000). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's pagination.next_cursor. | |
| end_time | No | End of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. | |
| interval | No | Downsample bucket — 30s, 1m, 5m, 1h, up to 1d. Returns the newest book in each bucket. Omit for every recorded book change. | |
| start_time | No | Start of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that history is bounded by the plan window, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or potential rate limits, but the schema fields (e.g., cursor) partly cover pagination. The extra detail is minor but non-contradictory.
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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes the tool's core function and resource scope, while the second conveys the plan-window constraint. Every word earns its place, and the key differentiator ('Historical') is front-loaded.
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?
Given the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, plus a fully documented input schema covering all 7 parameters, the description is mostly complete for a data-retrieval tool. The only minor gap is the lack of a return-value description, but no output schema exists and the tool's nature (snapshots) implies the general shape. The essential call-time information is present.
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%, with every parameter individually documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so it relies on the schema to carry semantic weight. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving historical L2 depth snapshots (time series) for a Limitless market by slug. The term 'Historical' differentiates it from real-time order book tools like limitless_get_orderbook, and 'by slug' specifies the resource identifier. The scope is unambiguous.
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 notes that 'Every account plan' can use it and that history is bounded by the plan window, providing some context on applicability. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or sibling tools for comparison. The usage guidance is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List currently-open Limitless (Base CLOB) markets, DepthFeed-exclusive. Every account plan; only the keyless demo surface is refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only. | btc |
| type | No | Filter by market window/type. | |
| limit | No | Page size (1–100). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's pagination.next_cursor. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool is DepthFeed-exclusive and that only the keyless demo surface is refused, giving useful auth and access context. This goes beyond the structured hints and does not contradict them.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the core function and scope, the second covers access restrictions. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail; every word 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?
Without an output schema, the description does not specify the return shape or pagination behavior beyond what the cursor parameter implies. It is adequate for a simple listing operation but leaves some ambiguity about the response contents. Given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it is close to complete but not fully.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents their meanings fully. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but that is acceptable because the schema carries the heavy lifting, hence the baseline score of 3.
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 explicitly states the verb 'List' with a precise resource: currently-open Limitless (Base CLOB) markets, further narrowed by 'DepthFeed-exclusive.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like limitless_get_orderbook or limitless_get_snapshots, which fetch specific data rather than browse open 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?
The description implies usage for browsing open Limitless markets and notes that all account plans have access except the keyless demo surface, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling comparisons are mentioned, so guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Paid data plan required. Return every active Polymarket market across all categories, not only crypto. AI execution credits do not unlock this export. The text result is one LLM-readable line per market: MARKET_NAME | OUTCOME PRICES | DEADLINE | MARKET_ID. The sweep fails closed if complete pagination cannot be verified and includes timestamp, count, source-page count, and SHA-256.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: paid plan requirement, credit restriction, output format (LLM-readable lines with specific fields), and pagination fail-closed with SHA-256 verification.
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 concise, with every sentence adding essential information, and key constraints are front-loaded.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description fully covers purpose, constraints, output format, error behavior, and verification, making it complete for the tool's functionality.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 applies, and the description compensates by detailing the return 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 clearly states it returns every active Polymarket market across all categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_search_markets and polymarket_get_market.
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 explicitly mentions the paid data plan requirement and that AI credits do not unlock the export, providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose contrasts with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a single Polymarket market by id (market_id) or by slug. Provide exactly one of market_id or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only. | btc |
| slug | No | Market slug (alternative to market_id). | |
| market_id | No | Market id from polymarket_search_markets. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds the requirement that exactly one identifier must be provided, which is a useful behavioral constraint beyond the schema. It does not disclose error behavior, return format, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if both are provided), but given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 that states the tool's purpose, the identifier options, and the exclusivity requirement. Every word earns its place, and no redundant explanation is included.
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?
The tool is a simple retrieval operation with all parameters documented and annotations covering safety. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around expected return shape and behavior on invalid input, but these are not critical given the low complexity and the presence of readOnlyHint.
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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by stating that market_id and slug are mutually exclusive alternatives, which is not encoded in the structured schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3.
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 ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('a single Polymarket market'), and explicitly names the two ways to identify it (by market_id or slug). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_search_markets and polymarket_all_markets, which handle multiple 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?
The instruction 'Provide exactly one of market_id or slug' is explicit usage guidance for the tool. It communicates the mutual exclusivity constraint clearly. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when to prefer this over search or list tools, but the 'single market' framing implies the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Historical order-book snapshots (time series) for one Polymarket market. Use interval to downsample and include_orderbook for the full ladder. History depth is gated by plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only. | btc |
| fill | No | ffill returns ONE ROW PER BUCKET for the whole window, carrying the last captured book into buckets that held no capture. Each row then carries `filled` (0 = a capture, 1 = carried forward) and `as_of_ts`, the moment that book was recorded. Requires `interval`. Without it, `interval` returns only the buckets that held a capture — a short series means the market is quoted infrequently, not that data is missing. | |
| limit | No | Page size (1–1000). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's pagination.next_cursor. | |
| end_time | No | End of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. | |
| interval | No | Downsample bucket — 30s, 1m, 5m, 1h, up to 1d. Returns the newest book in each bucket. Omit for every recorded book change. | |
| market_id | Yes | Market id from polymarket_search_markets. | |
| start_time | No | Start of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. | |
| include_orderbook | No | Include the full bid/ask ladder per snapshot (default top-of-book). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as plan-gated history depth and the fact that this is a time series of snapshots rather than a single order-book view. No contradiction exists.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first defines the tool's core purpose, the second gives the two most important usage levers and a plan limitation. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.
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 tool with 9 parameters, the schema carries detailed parameter semantics, while the description supplies the strategic context: what the tool returns, for one market, and how history depth is constrained. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.
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 the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description only briefly highlights interval and include_orderbook, which adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb and resource: historical order-book snapshots (time series) for one Polymarket market. This clearly distinguishes the tool from search/get market tools and from snapshot tools on other exchanges.
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 practical usage guidance: use interval to downsample, include_orderbook for the full ladder, and be aware that history depth is plan-gated. It does not explicitly name when not to use the tool or point to an alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Polymarket up/down crypto prediction markets for a coin. Returns market id, slug, window, status and timing. Use the returned id/slug with polymarket_get_market or polymarket_get_snapshots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only. | btc |
| type | No | Filter by market window/type, e.g. 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 24h. | |
| limit | No | Page size (1–100). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's pagination.next_cursor. | |
| end_time | No | Filter: markets active at/before this time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. | |
| resolved | No | true → only resolved markets, false → only active. | |
| start_time | No | Filter: markets active at/after this time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what is returned (market id, slug, window, status, timing) and how to chain the result with other tools, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or rate limits beyond what the schema already covers. It provides reasonable context beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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 sentences: the first states the core function and output, the second explains how to use the output. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains zero filler or repetition. Every sentence 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 optional parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential use case and return concept, but it does not fully specify the structure of the result beyond naming fields, nor does it mention default behavior like the default coin. However, the input schema covers parameter details, and the description's guidance for chaining with other tools is useful. It is mostly complete for a search tool with rich schema documentation.
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 7 parameters are fully documented in the input schema with detailed descriptions, defaults, enums, and format guidance. The tool description does not need to repeat this and does not add extra parameter meaning. This matches the baseline expectation of 3.
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 'List' with a specific resource: Polymarket up/down crypto prediction markets for a coin. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_all_markets by the 'for a coin' scope, and it lists the key return fields (id, slug, window, status, timing), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 offers a clear context for when to use the tool — to list markets for a coin — and even guides the next step by suggesting using the returned id/slug with polymarket_get_market or polymarket_get_snapshots. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like polymarket_all_markets for broader searches, so the exclusion/alternative guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Cross-venue top-of-book snapshot for all assets across Polymarket, Kalshi, and Binance — a one-shot overview of the current state. No arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds value by specifying it is a cross-venue, top-of-book snapshot and a one-shot overview, providing context beyond structured fields.
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?
Single sentence with clear front-loaded purpose. Every word adds value; no wasted text.
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 no-parameter snapshot tool, the description covers scope and behavior. However, it does not describe the return format or data structure, which could be useful given no output schema.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description simply states 'No arguments,' which is sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds clarity without redundancy.
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?
Description explicitly states it provides a cross-venue top-of-book snapshot for all assets across Polymarket, Kalshi, and Binance. This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that target single venues or specific order books.
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?
Description implies usage for a one-shot overview with no arguments, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or suggest alternatives like venue-specific order book tools. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show the current session's plan, rate limits, history window, and coin access (reflects keyless demo vs. your API key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld hints; description adds specifics (plan, rate limits, history window, coin access) and notes keyless demo distinction, providing useful context beyond 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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; every part adds value.
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?
No output schema, but description fully explains return values (plan, rate limits, etc.) and no additional context needed. Complete for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
No parameters (baseline 4 per rules). Schema coverage is 100%, description adds meaning by listing what the tool shows.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'show' and resource 'current session's plan, rate limits, history window, and coin access', distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are market-related.
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?
Context is clear (check session info), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives; however, siblings are unrelated so confusion is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
backtest_paths1 field changedInput schema / properties / coin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Crypto asset. Keyless/demo and Free plans are BTC-only; all 7 require a paid plan."New value: +"Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only."kalshi_search_markets1 field changedInput schema / properties / coin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Crypto asset. Keyless/demo and Free plans are BTC-only; all 7 require a paid plan."New value: +"Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only."limitless_search_markets1 field changedInput schema / properties / coin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Crypto asset. Keyless/demo and Free plans are BTC-only; all 7 require a paid plan."New value: +"Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only."polymarket_get_market1 field changedInput schema / properties / coin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Crypto asset. Keyless/demo and Free plans are BTC-only; all 7 require a paid plan."New value: +"Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only."polymarket_get_snapshots1 field changedInput schema / properties / coin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Crypto asset. Keyless/demo and Free plans are BTC-only; all 7 require a paid plan."New value: +"Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only."polymarket_search_markets1 field changedInput schema / properties / coin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Crypto asset. Keyless/demo and Free plans are BTC-only; all 7 require a paid plan."New value: +"Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only."kalshi_get_snapshots2 fields changedInput schema / properties / fillAdded value: +{
+ "description": "ffill returns ONE ROW PER BUCKET for the whole window, carrying the last captured book into buckets that held no capture. Each row then carries `filled` (0 = a capture, 1 = carried forward) and `as_of_ts`, the moment that book was recorded. Requires `interval`. Without it, `interval` returns only the buckets that held a capture — a short series means the market is quoted infrequently, not that data is missing.",
+ "enum": [
+ "ffill",
+ "none"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / intervalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Downsample bucket — 30s, 1m, 5m, 1h, up to 1d. Returns the newest book in each bucket. Omit for every recorded book change.",
+ "type": "string"
+}limitless_get_snapshots2 fields changedInput schema / properties / fillAdded value: +{
+ "description": "ffill returns ONE ROW PER BUCKET for the whole window, carrying the last captured book into buckets that held no capture. Each row then carries `filled` (0 = a capture, 1 = carried forward) and `as_of_ts`, the moment that book was recorded. Requires `interval`. Without it, `interval` returns only the buckets that held a capture — a short series means the market is quoted infrequently, not that data is missing.",
+ "enum": [
+ "ffill",
+ "none"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / intervalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Downsample bucket — 30s, 1m, 5m, 1h, up to 1d. Returns the newest book in each bucket. Omit for every recorded book change.",
+ "type": "string"
+}polymarket_get_snapshots2 fields changedInput schema / properties / fillAdded value: +{
+ "description": "ffill returns ONE ROW PER BUCKET for the whole window, carrying the last captured book into buckets that held no capture. Each row then carries `filled` (0 = a capture, 1 = carried forward) and `as_of_ts`, the moment that book was recorded. Requires `interval`. Without it, `interval` returns only the buckets that held a capture — a short series means the market is quoted infrequently, not that data is missing.",
+ "enum": [
+ "ffill",
+ "none"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / interval / descriptionPrevious value: -"Downsample bucket, e.g. 1m, 5m, 1h — one snapshot per bucket."New value: +"Downsample bucket — 30s, 1m, 5m, 1h, up to 1d. Returns the newest book in each bucket. Omit for every recorded book change."backtest_pathsbarskalshi_get_candlespolymarket_all_marketskalshi_get_orderbookkalshi_get_snapshotskalshi_search_marketslimitless_get_orderbooklimitless_get_snapshotslimitless_search_marketspolymarket_get_marketpolymarket_get_snapshotspolymarket_search_marketsscreenerwhoamiClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Live prediction markets: Polymarket + Kalshi prices, odds, order books. Pay-per-call USDC, no key.
Live prediction-market odds, volume and movers across 8 platforms. Read-only, no auth.
Live Kalshi + Polymarket prediction-market data and cross-venue arbitrage spreads, one schema.
Kalshi MCP — US-regulated prediction-market data (no auth on public reads).
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct venue and data type: Polymarket/Kalshi/Limitless-specific search, orderbook, and snapshot tools are clearly separated by prefix, while bars, backtest_paths, screener, and whoami serve unique purposes. No two tools could plausibly be confused in agent selection.
Most tools follow a clear `<venue>_<action>_<object>` pattern (e.g., kalshi_get_orderbook, limitless_get_snapshots, polymarket_search_markets). A few like backtest_paths, bars, screener, and whoami break the pattern, but they are descriptive and consistent with their domain. Overall predictable and legible.
15 tools is well-scoped for a multi-venue market data API. Each tool adds meaningful functionality—search, snapshots, candles, orderbooks, screener, session info—without redundancy. The count aligns well with the apparent coverage of prediction markets, crypto, and equities.
The surface covers read operations for all major venues: search, market detail, orderbook, historical snapshots, and OHLCV bars. It also includes backtesting, cross-venue screener, and session introspection. No obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for a data-centric server.