FREE. Risk-score the settlement rules of a Polymarket market (slug or search words): flags discretion, vague sources, cancellation and deadline traps. Top 2 markets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | Yes | Polymarket slug or search words |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the scoring dimensions and the 'Top 2 markets' cap, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, how it handles zero or many matches, rate/cost mechanics beyond 'FREE', or what the output looks like beyond flags.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, and the cost signal leads. Each clause adds information: cost, action, criteria, and result cap.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should fully explain behavior and returns. It signals output concepts (risk score plus flags) but leaves the result shape and the relationship to rule_check_full unclear, so a caller still has open questions.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'slug or search words' merely restates the schema text and adds no format, example, or disambiguation guidance.
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?
Specific verb and resource: risk-scores the settlement rules of a Polymarket market, with concrete criteria named (discretion, vague sources, cancellation, deadline traps). It doesn't name or distinguish itself from the sibling rule_check_full, so the agent must infer the free/limited-vs-full split from the word 'FREE' and 'Top 2 markets'.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'FREE' plus 'Top 2 markets' hints this is a limited preview and that rule_check_full covers more, but no alternative is named and no exclusion is stated. An agent must guess when to escalate to the full version.
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.