Polymarket MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it returns comprehensive market data, and livePrice may be null for closed or inactive CLOB tokens. However, it doesn't cover error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with core functionality, zero waste. First sentence defines purpose and scope, second clarifies a key behavioral nuance (livePrice nullability).

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 read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete—it specifies what data is returned and a key behavioral nuance. However, it could better differentiate from siblings and mention response structure.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying token_id mapping, aligning with 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 with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete market information'), listing key data components (metadata, tokens, volume, liquidity, livePrice). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_market_by_slug' by emphasizing comprehensiveness and the livePrice nuance.

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 for retrieving detailed market data by token_id, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_market_by_slug' or 'get_current_price'. No when-not scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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