Polymarket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the tool returns ('Returns clobTokenIds and conditionId'), which is helpful behavioral information not in the schema. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits: whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise at three short sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source context and return values, then an example. No wasted words, though the example could be slightly more informative (e.g., showing the full parameter syntax rather than just 'id=680392').

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides basic completeness: purpose, parameter context, and return values. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally cover more behavioral aspects (error handling, data freshness, etc.). The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured information about the tool's operation.

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 documents the single 'id' parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces that the ID is 'numeric' and provides an example ('Example: id=680392'), but doesn't explain format constraints, valid ranges, or relationship to other tools beyond the 'Source: id from list_markets' hint. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 market details by numeric id.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('market details'), and key constraint ('by numeric id'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market_by_slug' or 'get_market_details', which appear to serve similar purposes with different identifiers.

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: 'Source: id from list_markets' implies this tool should be used with IDs obtained from the list_markets tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_market_by_slug or get_market_details, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the ID source.

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