Polymarket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: 'Unknown address may return 404' which warns about potential error responses. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or whether this is a read-only 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides important behavioral context and an example. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and one error case, but doesn't describe the response format, success cases, or other potential behaviors. With no annotations and no output schema, more completeness would be helpful.

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 fully documents the single 'address' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example format ('0xabc....') but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema description.

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 ('user's public profile'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by Ethereum address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are focused on markets, trading, events, and other domains rather than user profiles.

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 for when to use this tool (to retrieve a public profile by Ethereum address) and includes an example. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which are all in different domains.

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