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 discloses the fallback behavior ('Falls back to top-volume active markets'), which is valuable context beyond basic retrieval. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving gaps for a read operation tool.

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 with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's function and providing a usage example. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and fallback behavior but lacks details on return values or error handling. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 fully documents the 'limit' parameter. The description adds minimal value with the example 'limit=10', which reinforces the default but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. 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 featured/promoted markets' with the specific action 'Get' and resource 'featured/promoted markets'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_trending_markets' or 'list_markets' by specifying a particular subset of markets, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage context with 'Falls back to top-volume active markets', suggesting this tool is for retrieving promoted content with a fallback mechanism. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_trending_markets' or 'list_active_markets', leaving the agent to infer based on the 'featured/promoted' focus.

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