Polymarket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: HTTP method (POST), endpoint (/books), return behavior for empty input (returns []), and example token ID format. However, it misses critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response structure, which are essential for a batch operation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: method/endpoint, source guidance, empty-case behavior, and example. However, the example syntax is slightly informal and could be clearer, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'via POST CLOB /books' could be streamlined).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a batch tool. It covers basic purpose and parameter sources but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error responses, and return format (e.g., structure of order books). For a tool with 1 parameter and no structured safety info, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with the parameter 'token_ids' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions sources for token IDs and provides an example format ('token_ids=[clobTokenIds[0], clobTokenIds[1]]'), but doesn't explain semantics like what token IDs represent or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Batch order books via POST CLOB /books' specifies the verb ('batch'), resource ('order books'), and method. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_order_book' by indicating batch capability. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_batch_prices' or 'get_batch_spreads', missing full sibling differentiation.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning sources for token IDs ('Source: clobTokenIds from list_active_markets or get_market_details') and behavior when none found ('If none found, returns []'). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like 'get_order_book' for single markets or other batch tools, and no prerequisites are stated.

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