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. It discloses that the data is 'public on-chain' (implying read-only access) and gives an example format, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema hints), error handling, or what the return data looks like (no output schema).

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, and another providing usage hints with an example. It's front-loaded with key information, though the example could be more structured (e.g., clarifying it's just an illustration).

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 tool with 4 parameters and complex data retrieval. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination details, data format, error cases) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured metadata, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'user address' and 'optional market conditionId' with an example format, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format details for 'user' are already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: retrieving a user's closed/settled positions using public on-chain data. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('closed/settled positions'), and scope ('public on-chain data'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_positions' or 'get_positions_value'.

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 the required 'user address' and optional 'market conditionId', but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_positions' for open positions). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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