Polymarket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is for getting metadata but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The example 'no params' hints at simplicity but lacks depth.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first phrase, provides usage guidance, and includes a helpful example, all in three short clauses with zero wasted words.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple metadata retrieval tool. However, without annotations, it lacks details on behavior, permissions, or output structure, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by noting 'Example: no params,' which clarifies that no inputs are required, aligning with the schema. This compensates adequately for the lack of parameters.

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 as 'Get sports metadata (leagues, seasons, etc.)' which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sports metadata') with examples of what metadata includes. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_valid_sports_market_types' or 'list_teams', but the scope is reasonably clear.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use with list_teams or sports market filters.' This gives clear context for when to apply this tool, though it doesn't specify when not to use it or name direct alternatives among siblings.

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