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 states the tool retrieves a comment by ID but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The example 'id=2064395' adds minimal context but doesn't compensate for the lack of critical operational details.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a source note and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or response format, and while the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient. For a retrieval tool with no annotations, more guidance is needed.

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 parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'The comment ID'. The description adds marginal value by specifying 'Source: id from list_comments', which clarifies the parameter's origin but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline 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: 'Get a comment by id' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('comment'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on individual comment retrieval rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools like get_event_by_id or get_market_by_id, which follow similar patterns.

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 'Source: id from list_comments', suggesting this tool should be used after obtaining IDs from list_comments. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use this over list_comments for bulk retrieval) or any exclusions, making it somewhat vague.

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