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 states the tool retrieves markets for an event but doesn't describe key behaviors such as whether it's a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and provide an example. There is no wasted text, and every sentence adds value, 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 complexity of retrieving event markets, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate. It doesn't explain the return values, potential errors, or behavioral traits like pagination or data freshness. With no structured fields to rely on, the description is incomplete for effective tool use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (event_slug and event_id) well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning these parameters and providing an example (event_id=80505), but doesn't elaborate on semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline score 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 tool's purpose: 'Get markets for a specific event.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('markets for a specific event'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_market_by_id' or 'list_markets', which reduces it from 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 some usage guidance by mentioning that event_id or event_slug should come from 'list_events/search_markets', which implies context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_event_by_id' or 'list_markets', nor does it provide exclusions or detailed prerequisites, keeping it at an implied level.

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