Polymarket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation ('Get'), specifies the return content ('event and associated markets'), and provides a concrete example. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 yet information-dense. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides context about slug sources, and the third gives a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, usage guidance, return content, and an example. It doesn't describe the structure of returned events/markets or error responses, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of annotations, this is reasonably complete. The main gap is the absence of output format details.

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 fully documents the single 'slug' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example slug format ('presidential-election-2024') and mentioning where slugs can be obtained. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('Get event details'), target resource ('event and associated markets'), and method ('by slug'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_event_by_id by specifying the slug-based lookup approach, and mentions alternative sources for obtaining slugs (search_markets or list_events).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('by slug') and provides two specific alternative sources for obtaining slugs (search_markets or list_events). It also distinguishes from get_event_by_id by specifying the slug-based approach, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it. The example further clarifies usage context.

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