Polymarket MCP Server

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 mentions the HTTP method (POST) and return behavior ('If none found, returns {}'), which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, response format beyond the empty object example, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a batch query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with three concise sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source guidance and an example. There's minimal waste, though the example could be slightly more informative. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (batch operation with one parameter), 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and a basic example, but lacks behavioral details like authentication, response structure beyond empty cases, or error scenarios. For a batch query tool without output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'token_ids'. The description adds marginal value by providing example token ID sources ('clobTokenIds from list_active_markets or get_market_details') and an example array format, but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 spreads via POST CLOB /spreads' indicates it retrieves spread data for multiple tokens in batch. It specifies the resource (spreads) and method (POST), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_spread' (singular) and 'get_batch_prices' (different data). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings like 'get_batch_order_books'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Source: clobTokenIds from list_active_markets or get_market_details' specifies where to obtain the required token IDs. It implies usage for batch operations rather than single-token queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name direct alternatives like 'get_spread' for single tokens.

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