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 that 'Series includes events array', which adds some behavioral context about the return structure. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. The additional sentences provide useful context without redundancy. However, the example could be more integrated, and there's slight room for tighter phrasing.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a simple lookup tool. It covers the purpose, parameter source, and hints at return structure ('events array'), but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral constraints, which are needed for full contextual understanding.

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 'id' parameter documented as 'The series ID'. The description adds minimal value by referencing 'id from list_series' and providing an example 'id=10543', but doesn't explain format constraints or validation beyond what the schema implies. This meets 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: 'Get series by id' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('series'), and it distinguishes the resource from siblings like 'get_event_by_id' or 'get_market_by_id'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_series' beyond mentioning the source, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Source: id from list_series', suggesting this tool should be used after retrieving IDs from 'list_series'. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity compared to other ID-based tools like 'get_event_by_id'.

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