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 'live trading volume,' implying real-time data, but does not clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operational behavior beyond its basic function.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. It consists of two sentences that provide essential information without redundancy. However, the example could be integrated more smoothly, and there is room for slight improvement in flow, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter source but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits. For a read-only tool with minimal complexity, this is passable but leaves room for enhancement in providing a fuller context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Event ID to get live volume for.' The description adds minimal value by providing an example ('Example: id=80505') and referencing 'list_events' as the source, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. 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 live trading volume for an event.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('live trading volume for an event'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market_volume' or 'get_total_traded', which might offer similar volume data, so it falls short of 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 context by mentioning 'Source: event id from list_events,' which implies this tool should be used after fetching events via 'list_events.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_market_volume' or 'get_total_traded,' and does not specify any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the event ID.

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