Polymarket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions required parameters and an example, but fails to describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the quote output entails (e.g., estimated fees, time). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic input requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It uses two sentences efficiently to cover key points, though the example could be slightly more integrated. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity of a bridge quote tool with 6 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the quote returns (e.g., estimated cost, time), error handling, or dependencies beyond a vague reference to 'get_supported_assets'. Without annotations or output schema, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing 'fromAmountBaseUnit and recipientAddress' as required and providing an example with 'fromChainId=137, toChainId=137', but this doesn't significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('Get a bridge quote') and the resource ('from /quote'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bridge quotes rather than market data or other operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get_bridge_transaction_status'.

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 some usage context by mentioning 'Source: token/chain from get_supported_assets', implying a prerequisite or data source. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_bridge_transaction_status' or other quote-related tools, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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