Polymarket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'public' (implying no authentication needed) and hints at data retrieval, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: rate limits, data format (e.g., time series structure), pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly address purpose and parameter usage. However, the example could be integrated more smoothly, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Use limit' repeats schema info), slightly reducing efficiency.

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. It lacks details on return values (e.g., time series format, data points), error cases, or behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool in a complex sibling set, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by providing an example ('limit=30'), which clarifies usage but doesn't expand beyond the schema's semantics. 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 tool's purpose: 'Get builder daily volume timeseries (public).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('builder daily volume timeseries'), and scope ('public'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_live_volume' or 'get_market_volume', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'Use limit for number of points.' It lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_live_volume'), prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection among siblings.

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