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 the tool is 'public' (implying no authentication needed) and supports pagination, but doesn't describe rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether the data is real-time versus cached. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with only two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on response format, data freshness, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 both parameters ('limit', 'offset') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example ('limit=50, offset=0'), which clarifies typical usage but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline of 3 for 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 as 'Get builder leaderboard (public)', which specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('builder leaderboard'), and scope ('public'). It distinguishes this from other leaderboard tools like 'get_trader_leaderboard' by specifying 'builder', but doesn't differentiate from non-leaderboard siblings beyond the resource name.

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 through the pagination example ('Use limit/offset for pagination'), suggesting this tool is for retrieving paginated leaderboard data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trader_leaderboard' or other data retrieval tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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