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. It discloses that the tool returns market data with 'clobTokenIds for CLOB tools', adding useful behavioral context about the output. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a read operation.

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 three concise sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, providing usage context, and giving an example. There is no wasted text, making it 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a simple lookup tool. It covers purpose, usage, and output context, but lacks details on error cases or behavioral constraints, which could be beneficial despite the simplicity.

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 'slug' parameter thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by providing an example ('slug=will-biden-win-2024') and mentioning the source of slugs, but doesn't significantly enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed market info by slug'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_market_by_id' or 'get_market_details', which likely serve similar purposes but 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 clear context on when to use this tool by specifying the source of the slug ('from search_markets or list_markets'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_market_by_id', leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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