whoami
Show the current session's plan, rate limits, history window, and coin access (reflects keyless demo vs. your API key).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
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.