Home / Token cost / Predictionguard

The Predictionguard MCP server costs 6,339 tokens before the first call.

Connect Predictionguard and its 41 tool definitions are loaded into the model's context on every request — 3.2% of a 200k window spent before your agent does anything.

QUICK ANSWER The Predictionguard MCP server's tool definitions consume 6,339 tokens — 3.3× the median MCP server (1,905 tokens). A scoped grant exposing only the tools you use cuts that roughly in proportion.

MEASURED FROM SCHEMAS 41 tools · 6,339 tokens · 3.2% of 200k · 0.6% of 1M Method →

What that buys before your agent starts working.

Tool definitions are overhead: they occupy context on every request and compete with your code, documents and conversation history for the same window.

200K WINDOW 3.2%
1M WINDOW 0.6%

Corpus context: Predictionguard ranks #944 of 3,213 measured MCP servers by definition cost. The median is 1,905 tokens, p90 is 7,952, and the heaviest (Fusionauth) is 183,337 — 92% of a 200k window on its own.

Where the 6,339 tokens go.

Each row is one tool definition as a tools/list entry — name, description and input schema — counted with o200k_base. Average: 155 tokens per tool.

ToolCategoryTokens% of server
pg_sar_report Read 549 8.7%
pg_prediction_market_integrity_gate Read 303 4.8%
pg_market_trades Read 297 4.7%
pg_insider_signal_scan Read 237 3.7%
pg_kalshi_conflict_of_interest_check Read 220 3.5%
pg_insider_alert_signed Read 209 3.3%
pg_pre_event_flow_analysis Read 206 3.2%
pg_position_timing_anomaly Read 201 3.2%
pg_kalshi_search Read 189 3.0%
pg_information_advantage_score Read 188 3.0%
pg_whale_add Write 188 3.0%
pg_wallet_correlation_match Read 176 2.8%
pg_classified_keyword_match Read 175 2.8%
pg_kalshi_orderbook_analysis Read 164 2.6%
pg_uma_status Read 158 2.5%
pg_kalshi_resolution_calendar Read 157 2.5%
pg_kalshi_market_details Read 155 2.4%
pg_whale_alerts Read 153 2.4%
pg_kalshi_thin_market_alert Read 133 2.1%
pg_sanctions_screen_entity Read 133 2.1%
pg_resolution_risk_score Read 131 2.1%
pg_adverse_media_entity Read 129 2.0%
pg_whale_scan Read 128 2.0%
pg_known_cases Read 127 2.0%
pg_wallet_risk_profile Read 126 2.0%
pg_market_search Read 124 2.0%
pg_uma_market_resolution Read 113 1.8%
pg_wallet_entity_resolve Write 112 1.8%
pg_kalshi_trending Read 111 1.8%
pg_verify_alert Read 104 1.6%
pg_kyc_bundle_entity Read 102 1.6%
pg_evidence_bundle_market Read 98 1.5%
pg_market_integrity_scan Read 95 1.5%
pg_wallet_lookup Read 95 1.5%
pg_whale_remove Destructive 91 1.4%
pg_pep_check_entity Read 88 1.4%
pg_market_details Read 85 1.3%
pg_whale_list Read 82 1.3%
pg_trending_markets Read 78 1.2%
pg_market_volume_profile Execute 74 1.2%
pg_overview Read 55 0.9%

Most agents use a handful of these tools. They pay for all 41.

A PolicyLayer grant exposes only the tools you allow — ungranted definitions are filtered out of the tool list, so they never enter the context window. Estimates below assume typical-weight tools (155 tokens each).

Grant scopeDefinition costReduction
All 41 tools (no gateway) 6,339 tokens
3 granted tools ~464 tokens −93%
5 granted tools ~773 tokens −88%
10 granted tools ~1,546 tokens −76%

Predictionguard token-cost questions.

How many tokens does the Predictionguard MCP server use?+

Its 41 tool definitions total 6,339 tokens — 3.2% of a 200k context window — measured with tiktoken o200k_base over the serialised tools/list payload. Exact counts vary slightly by client and model.

Why does Predictionguard consume tokens before I send a message?+

MCP clients load every connected server's tool definitions — name, description, and input schema — into the model's context so it knows what it can call. That payload is charged against your context window on every request, whether or not a tool is used.

How do I reduce Predictionguard's token usage?+

Expose fewer tools. A PolicyLayer grant scopes Predictionguard to only the tools you allow — ungranted definitions are filtered out of the tool list, so they never enter the context window. A grant of 3 typical tools costs roughly 464 tokens, a 93% reduction.

Does deferred tool loading fix this?+

Partially, in some clients. Claude Code defers MCP tool schemas behind a tool-search step by default, and VS Code has experimental grouping — but you still pay tokens per search and reload, and Cursor, Windsurf and Gemini CLI load definitions upfront. Reducing the exposed tool set cuts the cost in every client.

How these numbers were measured.

01
Serialisation

Each tool is serialised as a tools/list entry — name, description, input schema — from the schemas in the PolicyLayer scan database. Clients differ slightly in framing, so treat counts as close estimates.

02
Tokeniser

tiktoken o200k_base (GPT-4o/o-series). Anthropic's current tokeniser isn't published, so Claude's exact counts will differ; for English text and JSON schemas the totals are close enough to treat these as estimates.

03
Deferred loading

Some clients now defer schema loading (Claude Code's tool search; VS Code experimental grouping). You still pay per search and reload — and Cursor, Windsurf and Gemini CLI load everything upfront.

Computed 07-06-2026 from the PolicyLayer scan database over all 41 catalogued Predictionguard tools. Counts refresh with every site build.

Expose only the tools you use — the rest never enter your context.

A PolicyLayer grant scopes Predictionguard to the tools you actually allow. Ungranted definitions never load, and every call that does run is checked against policy first.

Free to start. No card required.

4,600+ MCP servers and 31,000+ tools scanned and risk-classified.

// GET IN TOUCH

Have a question or want to learn more? Send us a message.

Message sent.

We'll get back to you soon.