Polymarket trade-readiness for an address: live approval status plus the calldata for anything missing (executed outside MCP — this server cannot sign). Auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | the trading address to check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the actual execution must happen outside MCP ('executed outside MCP — this server cannot sign'), which conveys a read-only nature and a critical limitation. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state or mention any side effects, but the 'cancel sign' statement strongly implies no writes. This is valuable context beyond the minimal schema.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds a critical caveat about execution. Every word serves a purpose; no filler or redundancy. It is efficient while still informative.
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 simple (1 parameter, no output schema), and the description covers both the core functionality and the important limitation (cannot sign, executed externally). It also notes the auth requirement. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could mention what a typical use case is for the returned calldata, but this is 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 100% for the single parameter 'address' with its own description. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so it leverages the schema as the primary source. This meets the baseline for when the schema covers everything, but the description does not go beyond the schema's clarity.
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's function: 'Polymarket trade-readiness for an address' with specific details on the output (live approval status plus calldata). It includes a technical caveat about execution being outside MCP, distinguishing it from other tool variants. This is a specific verb-resource combination that sets it apart from siblings like get_balance or check_pm_order.
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 the use case (checking trade-readiness) and notes the authentication requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any when-not guidance. The purpose is clear, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.
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 resource and action. Within the prediction market domain, prepare vs create vs submit are clearly differentiated by signing model (client-signed vs server-signed). Even similar-sounding tools like check_spend and check_pm_order are unambiguously scoped to general spending vs PM orders, and their descriptions reinforce the boundary.
All 47 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. Verbs like get, list, create, cancel, revoke, prepare, submit, set, remove, and poll are used uniformly. There is no mixing of styles or vague verbs like 'process' or 'run', making the surface highly predictable.
47 tools is significantly above the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the server covers a broad and complex domain (prediction markets, policy, delegations), the sheer count makes the surface heavy and potentially overwhelming. Some consolidation (e.g., merging related PM order operations) could reduce cognitive load without sacrificing functionality.
The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage across all major subdomains: authentication, policy versioning, delegation CRUD (prepare/confirm/list/get/revoke/renew), intent management, PM order flow (create/cancel/list/prepare/submit/check), credential management (store/list/revoke), balance and top-up operations, and account-level actions (export, offboard, panic). Minor omissions exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to view a single credential in detail or update an intent), but agents can work around these with existing tools.