Live Polymarket prediction-market data — question, outcomes, outcome prices, bestBid/bestAsk/spread, volume24hr/volume1wk, oneDayPriceChange, clobTokenIds, conditionId, category tags, liquidity, end date — ranked by volume24hr. Cost: $0.005 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results, default 20, max 100 | |
| query | No | Case-insensitive keyword filter on the market question |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the $0.005 per call cost and the data fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or idempotency. For a read-only data tool, the transparency is moderate.
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 sentence that front-loads purpose and lists key fields efficiently. It is somewhat dense but contains no fluff. Could benefit from slight restructuring for readability, but overall concise.
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 absence of an output schema, the description comprehensively lists all returned fields. It covers cost and ordering. However, it does not describe the JSON structure or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps for a complex 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (limit and query). The ranking by volume24hr is implied default ordering, not a parameter.
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 it provides 'Live Polymarket prediction-market data' and lists specific fields (outcomes, prices, volume, etc.), clearly differentiating from siblings like pm_markets_preview. The verb 'provides' and resource 'Polymarket prediction-market data' are specific.
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 live market data and mentions cost, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., pm_markets_preview). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are stated.
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.
The tools are organized into clear families (chain, crypto, defi, pm, enrich, scan) and each targets a distinct data type. The preview tools are explicitly labeled as free samples, reducing but not eliminating confusion with their paid counterparts. Some overlap exists between chain_wallet and chain_balance, and between enrich_domain and enrich_tech_risk, but descriptions clarify the difference.
All tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern using snake_case (chain_balance, crypto_funding, enrich_domain). Preview tools consistently append '_preview' to their paid counterpart. The only minor variation is abbreviations like 'tx', 'pm', 'defi', but these are uniform.
At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The eight preview tools duplicate the functionality of their paid versions and inflate the count, though they serve a legitimate 'try before pay' purpose. The remaining 14 paid tools cover a wide range of risk data, making the count borderline appropriate.
The set covers on-chain balances, token security, DeFi yields, crypto prices, funding rates, prediction markets, domain enrichment, tech-risk CVE scanning, and MCP server auditing, which is a comprehensive risk toolkit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical data, no address reputation, no token price by address), but the core workflows are well covered.