Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

Polymarket Wallet Positions

polymarket_wallet

A Polymarket wallet's open positions (market, outcome, shares, average price, value, PnL) and latest trades with portfolio totals. Use to follow or vet a trader.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "polymarket_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
addressYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned content set and that only *open* positions are included, which is useful scope. It omits whether an API key is needed, how invalid/non-checksummed addresses behave, how trades are ordered or capped, and pagination semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the payload contents, the second gives the use case. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional, and the tool is a simple 2-parameter read. However, for a wallet lookup the address format and the ambiguous role of `limit` are exactly the details an agent needs to call it correctly, and both are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not: the `address` format (hex 0x-prefixed, chain) is never stated, and the `limit` parameter is not mentioned at all or whether it applies to positions, trades, or both.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (a Polymarket wallet's open positions) and enumerates the returned fields (market, outcome, shares, average price, value, PnL) plus latest trades and portfolio totals. The scope difference from siblings like polymarket_leaderboard or polymarket_market is clear from the resource alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use to follow or vet a trader" gives a use case but no when-not conditions and no named alternatives (e.g. polymarket_leaderboard for ranking traders, polymarket_market for market-level data). Usage is only implied from the scenario rather than routed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources