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 mentions 'public data,' which hints at read-only access, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'total value' entails (e.g., currency, calculation method). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence adds practical guidance with an example, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from the core purpose.

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 complexity (simple read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage but misses details on return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with no structured output information.

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 'user' parameter fully documented as 'User Ethereum address (0x...).' The description adds minimal value beyond this by providing an example ('Example: user=0xabc....'), but doesn't explain semantics like address validation or format requirements. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 total value of a user's positions (public data).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('total value of a user's positions'), and scope ('public data'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_positions' or 'get_closed_positions,' which might provide related but different data.

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 guidance by stating 'Use user address' and giving an example, which implies when to use this tool (when you need total value for a specific user). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_positions' for detailed position data). The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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